[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    On 10/25/2007 10:42 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
    > I agree that security code does need to provide security. What we
    > need to get away from is the automatic attacks that are based on 20th
    > century computer system assumptions. Things like "name based access
    > control is rediculous", and "a module can't be any good if it doesn't
    > deal with all objects", or "the granularity isn't fine enough". Look
    > at TOMOYO. It's chuck full of good ideas. Why spend so much energy
    > badgering them about not dealing with sockets? How about helping the
    > AppArmor crew come up with acceptable implementations rather than
    > whinging about the evils of hard links? And maybe, just maybe, we can
    > get away from the inevitable claim that you could do that with a few
    > minutes work in SELinux policy, but only if you're a security
    > professional of course.


    Thank you introducing TOMOYO Linux. I really like your idea of
    simplified MAC (and you work so hard!). I also find advantages
    of AppArmor for distributing policies with less hustle. Finally
    and most importantly, I respect SELinux as the first in-tree,
    flexible and reliable security frame work and respect developers

    As a project manager of TOMOYO Linux, I would like to
    push it, of course. But I noticed, if each of LSM module
    developer begin pushing their own code, that's not for the
    sake of Linux and we may end up with chaos.

    Instead of pushing TOMOYO Linux, I started developing
    comparison chart of security-enhance Linux implementations.
    The current version can be found in

    I would like to receive feedbacks from Stephen, Crispin
    (you already have a comparison, though :),
    Casey and any people interested in. If possible,
    I would like to include opinions from BSD people.

    I would like LSM to be the result of common requirements.
    "Common" means good in general, but not always for security
    perspective. IMHO, I think it is possible for us to get to the
    conclusion not to have a framework.

    Cheers (and with love to Linux),
    Toshiharu Harada

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-30 04:25    [W:0.025 / U:31.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site