🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.080947.10737@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
>So no security policy can ever be violated, because anything you may be
>able to do must have been "permitted".  Cracked somebody's password?  
>Well you were able to do it weren't you?  Doesn't violate the security 
>policy then, does it?  
>
>There is a difference between "security policy" (a written document),
>its translation into system level parameters, and the *enforcement* of 
>those parameters.

Perhaps there is a difference in the word "permit" between English and
German, but in English the word "to permit" means that one has not only
the ability, but also the authorization (what might be thought of as
``permission'').

Someone seldom has ``permission'' to crack passwords, though the ability
often exists.  An analogy is, you are ABLE to smash in my window and
enter my house, but you are not PERMITTED to do so.  It's the grade
school "can" and "may" argument.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard