Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:17:30 -0800 (PST) | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: AppArmor Security Goal |
| |
--- Crispin Cowan <crispin@crispincowan.com> wrote:
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > ... > > Can you explain why you want a non-privileged user to be able to edit > policy? I would like to better understand the problem here. > > Note that John Johansen is also interested in allowing non-privileged > users to manipulate AppArmor policy, but his view was to only allow a > non-privileged user to further tighten the profile on a program. To me, > that adds complexity with not much value, but if lots of users want it, > then I'm wrong :)
Now this is getting interesting. It looks to me as if you've implemented a mandatory access control scheme that some people would like to be able to use as a discretionary access control scheme. This is creepy after seeing the MCS implementation in SELinux, which is also a DAC scheme wacked out of a MAC scheme. Very interesting indeed.
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/
| |