Talk:Separation of protection and security
|WikiProject Computer Security / Computing||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Deletion of this Article?
- Yes, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This article needs to acknowledge the limitations of expecting trusted application-level enforcement of certain policies (e.g. those modeled by partially-ordered lattices) with mechanisms that ensure only separation. John 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Many sentences are vague, but starting with the first sentence:
It is not clear how or if architectures adopt distinctions.
"Usually means" is very ad-hoc qualifier, can we articulate what this means with precision?
(Some or all) protection (from what?) is provided by fault tolerance... Does this refer to protection from faults?
Both fault tolerance mechanisms and security policies can be implemented or enforced with OS or HW.
Is the intended distinction clear enough?
Some of the things cited subsequently as policies are not obviously policies.
If we can't make this article say something, we need to consider deleting it.
Can this stuff be illustrated with examples, like with cows?
If cows can be used to explain communism and capitalism, why not separation of protection and security? Anyway, I think that some clarifying examples are in order. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)