Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:18:46 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Arjan van de Ven (arjan@infradead.org) wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes: > > > > > > > > you must have a good defense against that argument, so I'm curious to > > > > hear what it is > > > > > > [I'm not from the apparmor people but my understanding is] > > > > > > Usually they claimed name spaces as the reason it couldn't work. > > > > I actually posted a list of 10 things that I made up in 3 minutes; just > > going over those 10 would be a good start already since they're the most > > obvious ones.. > > Yes, the conversation is all over the place. Many of the issues are > about some of the uglier parts of the AppArmor code, but the critical > issue is simple. Does their protection model actually protect against > their threat model. I would really like to see some grounded examples > that show whether it's broken or not.
Difficult to evaluate, when the answer whenever a flaw is pointed out is "that's not in our threat model." Easy enough to have a protection model match the threat model when the threat model is highly limited (and never really documented anywhere, particularly in a way that might warn its users of its limitations).
-- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
- 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/
| |