New version of capabilities patch online, some more status

[Chad Hanson]

	From my experience in working on both trusted window managers 
and X servers, there will need to be special casing in one application
or the other. If you take the approach that the X server is left alone
and
the changes are in the WM, you will have alot special casing in this
application.
It depends if you want these changes to get back into a open source
version
of twm, or support multiple WMs in the future. The basic screen stripe
code
would basically be the same for either as you are reserving an amount of
space 
at the top or bottom of the screen. The space reserved will vary
depending 
on the the size of screen which the desktop is being displayed. A less
intrusive
idea is to have an informational bar stating the security level. This is
alot
simpler, but can the stripe could be spoofed. 

	-Chad


richard offer wrote:
> 
> * $ from jont at us.ibm.com at "27-Apr: 5:34pm" | sed "1,$s/^/* /"
> *
> *
> *
> *
> * Reading the I-ching it looks like Richard Offer may have written:
> *
> * * $ from thompson at argus-systems.com at "27-Apr:10:52am" | sed "1,$s/^/* /"
> * *
> * * There is of course a third issue to be considered and that is the
> * * modification of window managers to be multi-level aware.  Typically,
> * * window managers are modified to display the label of each X window
> * * on each window.  An alternative approach is to create a screen stripe
> * * that displays the label of the currently in focus window.
> *
> * | You really need a trusted window manager to ensure that the "trusted
> * path" or
> * | what you're calling the "screen stripe" can't be spoofed.
> *
> * | Of course fixing it for "n" window managers is an excellent way of
> * getting
> * | people to contribute :-).
> *
> * Would it not be better to get the X server to lie about the screen size,
> * and have the X server maintain control of the stripe ?
> 
> Possibly, but:
> 
>   1) You're defiing X policy, X has a history of defining mechanism not policy.
> 
>   2) it maybe [1] that the server uses the screen size internally to size its
> frame buffer, this would lead to lots of special casing in the server. My goal
> is to get any changes incorporated in Xfree86, its easier if they aren't major
> re-structuring ones.
> 
> [1] I don't know, I'm playing devils advocat
> 
> *
> * (Conceptually) It seems easier than developing trust in "n" window
> * managers,
> * even for small 'n'.
> 
> Simple, the TCB (initially) defines one window manager (probaly twm).
> 
> *
> * - JonT
> 
> richard.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Offer           Widget FAQ --> http://reality.sgi.com/widgetFAQ
> MTS-Core Design (Motif)
> ___________________________________________http://reality.sgi.com/offer
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at trustedbsd.org
> with "unsubscribe trustedbsd-discuss" in the body of the message

-- 
Chad Hanson
Director, Research and Advanced Development
Argus Systems Group, Inc.
mailto:hanson at argus-systems.com
http://www.argus-systems.com
Phone: (217) 355-6308
Fax:   (217) 355-1433
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at trustedbsd.org
with "unsubscribe trustedbsd-discuss" in the body of the message