[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

One more...

> 2. This is argument #1 in a different guise and I find it about as weak.
> Pathname-based access control has strengths and weaknesses. I think
> users and Linux distributions are in a better position to evaluate those
> tradeoffs than L-K. Competition is good.

It took you quite a lot of time to realize AA does not do IPC (and all
the implications of that). I do not think Linux _users_ can do
informed decision here. Novell marketing did too good job here.

Heck, even I am not sure if I understand the implications of not doing
IPC confinement. Is shared memory commonly used in a way that allows
exploiting? I know it is a problem, and you probably could kill init
from hacked apache..... but what would you do to break out of jail?

(please cc me)
(cesky, pictures)
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: 2007-06-29 14:33    [W:0.297 / U:7.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site