Mandatory access control: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 13:33, 23 apr 2019

Versione delle 22:57, 2 mag 2019

Riga 69:

1. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070715134110/http://csrc.nist.gov/secpubs/rainbow/std004.txt "Technical Rational Behind CSC-STD-003-85: Computer Security Requirements"]. 1985-06-25. Archiviato dall'originale il 15 luglio del 2007. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

2. [httphttps://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/ "The Common Criteria Portal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060718074701/http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/ |date=18 luglio 2006 }}. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

3. Dipartimento della Difesa Americano (Dicembre 1985). [https://fas.org/irp/nsa/rainbow/std001.htm "DoD 5200.28-STD: Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria"]. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

4. [httphttps://www.niap-ccevs.org/cc-scheme/pp/pp.cfm/id/PP_OS_CA_V1.d/ "Controlled Access Protection Profile, Version 1.d"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207001837/http://www.niap-ccevs.org/cc-scheme/pp/pp.cfm/id/PP_OS_CA_V1.d/ |date=7 febbraio 2012 }}. Agenzia della Sicurezza Nazionale. 10-08-1999. Recuperato il 15-03-1008.

5. "Protection Profile for Multi-Level Operating Systems in Environments Requiring Medium Robustness, Version 1.22". Agenzia della Sicurezza Nazionale. 23-05-2001. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

Riga 79:

6. National Information Assurance Partnership. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080314060625/http://www.niap-ccevs.org/cc-scheme/vpl/ "The Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme Validated Products List"]. Archiviato dall’originale il 14-03-2008. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

7. [httphttps://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_30#head-eeb259e0ba81d96d59015b8f79456d9a5283c650 "TOMOYO Linux, an alternative Mandatory Access Control"]. Linux 2 6 30. Linux Kernel Newbies.

8. [httphttps://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_36 "Linux 2.6.36 released 20 October 2010". Linux 2.6.36]. Linux Kernel Newbies.

9. [httphttps://grsecurity.net/lsm.php "Why doesn't grsecurity use LSM?"].

10. Matthew Conover. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080325024250/http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/08/windows_vista_windows_security.html "Analysis of the Windows Vista Security Model"]. Symantec Corporation. Archiviato dall’originale il 25-03-2008. Recuperato il 08-10-2007.

Riga 95:

14. [https://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man3/sandbox_init.3.html "sandbox_init(3) man page"]. O7-07-2007. Recuperato il 15-03-2008.

15. [httphttps://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL-patch "SEPostgreSQL-patch"].

16. [httphttps://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/ "Security Enhanced PostgreSQL"].

17. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081121215622/http://www.rubix.com/ "Trusted RUBIX"].

Riga 109:

== Bibliografia ==

*P. A. Loscocco, S. D. Smalley, P. A. Muckelbauer, R. C. Taylor, S. J. Turner, and J. F. Farrell. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20070621155813/http://jya.com/paperF1.htm The Inevitability of Failure: The Flawed Assumption of Security in Modern Computing Environments]''. Negli Atti della 21esima Conferenza sulla sicurezza di sistemi di informazione nazionale, pagine 303-314, ottobre 1998.

*P. A. Loscocco, S. D. Smalley, ''[httphttps://www.nsa.gov/selinux/papers/ottawa01-abs.cfm Meeting Critical Security Objectives with Security-Enhanced Linux]'' Atti dell’Ottawa Linux Symposium del 2001.

*ISO/IEC DIS 10181-3, Information Technology, OSI Security Model, Security FrameWorks, Part 3: Access Control, 1993.

* Robert N. M. Watson. "[httphttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2428616.2430732 A decade of OS access-control extensibility]". Commun. ACM 56, 2 (February 2013), 52–63.

== Voci correlate ==