lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    Hi,

    On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:58:19PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > It's doing access control on pathnames, which can't work in unix enviroments.
    > It's following the default permit behaviour which causes pain in anything
    > security-related (compare [1]).

    Pathnames are problematic, no doubt.
    So AppArmor does currently do some less-than-nice things to get around
    this.
    On the other side, pathnames is what the admins see and use, so it is
    the right abstraction for the sysadmin, if you want to make a higher
    level of security available to people without the need to get them
    a large amount of extra training.
    So that gap needs to be bridged somehow.
    Maybe there are better ways compared to what AA does currently, and
    constructive suggestions are very welcome!

    And no, just claiming that AA is useless or crap is not constructive
    AFAICT. And saying that is should be better done as part of SElinux
    is not either.

    The goals are quite different. SElinux is a solution that wants to
    implement policies that cover lots of things. It's accordingly powerful
    and complex.

    AppArmor is easy. Everyone with a little background in Un*x can
    understand what it does and how it needs to be configured.
    Eventually, most sysadmins of the world can configure it correctly
    and thus make their systems more secure.
    (The submission to LKML should happen RSN, the committment has
    been there since a long time!)

    I don't want to judge, but I think the approaches and goals are
    different enough to grant both (and evetually others) the right
    to live.

    Actually, I'm a bit worried about the discussion.
    When I chose Linux, it was about the freedom of choice.
    And we have a nice abstraction (LSM) that allows this freedom. At
    a small price. It's not pleasant to see that some people want to move
    away from that.

    Best,
    --
    Kurt Garloff, Head Architect Linux R&D, Novell Inc.
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-19 08:52    [W:0.023 / U:1.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site