Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:48:56 -0700 (PDT) | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks |
| |
--- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> With pathnames, there is an unbounded and unknown > number of effective > security policies on the system, as there are an > unbounded and unknown > number of ways of viewing the files via pathnames.
I agree that for traditional DAC and MAC (including the flavors supported by SELinux) inodes is the only way to go. SELinux is a traditional Trusted OS architecture and addresses the traditional Trusted OS issues.
But as someone demonstrated earlier, not everyone believes that an EAL makes them feel secure and that is what LSM is really all about, allowing people who don't care about Protection Profiles but who do care about security to do something about it. How many of you have lambasted me over the years because I bled Orange? If SELinux is the only "secure" Linux haven't the Orange Book/Common Criteria people proven right in the end?
Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |