Talk:Separation of protection and security

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Deletion of this Article?

I suggest we delete this article. It appears no one can explain what this means. John (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't understand it" is not a reason for deletion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but "nobody can understand it" might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article ought to be deleted. When this page was first created in 2007, the primary source of this claimed distinction was the paper by Wuft et al., which is about HYDRA, an early microkernel. That paper states on page 450, "it is important at the outset to distinguish between protection and security," following with: "In our view, protection is a mechanism" while "security is a policy." This page's other references (e.g., Landwehr, 1981), while meaningful as early computer security publications, do not affirm this proposed security–protection distinction. The other references similarly lack relevance to the primary purpose of this page.

Even were this distinction used in early computer security publications, it is clearly unused today. To the extent this distinction has been used past the 1980s (if at all), it seems to only be used in the lecture notes of college professors who found this Wikipedia page and copied parts of it in (as can be seen by searching around Google). The only pages that link to this one either do so without explanation or do so as a misunderstanding of this page as addressing the mechanism–policy distinction).

I personally found this page from the Bell–LaPadula model page, which contains a sentence in its intro section stating that the Bell–LaPadula model is an example of a model "where there is no clear distinction between protection and security." Verifying the cited reference for that (Landwehr, 1981) brought me here. Reviewing all of what is said and the associated references for this article, I agree it is ripe for deletion. 72.198.108.97 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations

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)[reply]

Clarity

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.

John (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source explaining the concept with cows? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importanally, can cows be used to explain cows, preferably to the cows themselves? Now there's a mindbender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.78.24 (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]