User talk:Mattpalmer1086

Bell LaPadula Model
I like your comments on the Bell LaPadula article (and I notice David Bell chiming in again, too), including what you say about Strong *. The only justification I can come up with for including it is that some idiot in the CISSP world included it in their common body of knowledge, so there's a risk it will be on an exam. That's the only reason I went to the trouble of tracking the miserable thing down. I agree nobody really uses it in the MLS world (or CDS world, or whatever it's called now). Unfortunately, I think that the presence on CISSP is compelling enough to justify its inclusion in the only article that's likely to talk about the * property. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been working on BLP-like models for several years now - I'm just completing a dissertation about a model based in part on BLP. I take the point about the strong * property wrt CISSP. My major concern is that the BLP article doesn't become a dumping ground for anything related to MLS, which it shouldn't be, especially when there's still a lot of work to be done to make the description of BLP itself good.

I have no problem with linking out to other areas of interest - or to put in a discussion about the strong-* property, with the caveat that it isn't part of BLP (but does appear in the CISSP exams).

When I finish this dissertation, I may have a go at producing another BLP description. I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before, so I'm not sure of the correct protocol to follow, especially if I'm intending to rework a lot of material rather than just tweaking it.--Mattpalmer1086 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)