[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: AppArmor FAQ

> >> Some may infer otherwise from your document.
> >>
> > Not only that, the implication that secrecy is only useful to
> > intelligence agencies is pretty funny.
> That was not the claim. Rather, that intelligence agencies have a very
> strong need for privacy, and will go to greater lengths to get it,
> including using MLS systems. I contend that while most organizations
> want privacy, they don't want it so badly that they will put up with
> MLS, and so are looking for a more tolerable form of security.
> This is relevant here because information flow is the main advantage of
> labels over pathnames for access control. AppArmor does not attempt to
> manage information flow, allowing it to use pathnames to achieve ease of
> use. If you want information flow control, then by all means use a

As SEEdit shows, you can still have ease-of-use with system capable of
MLS.... so don't try to paint is as "pathnames are neccessary so it is
easy to use".
Just extend SELinux to handle new files.
(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: 2007-06-09 16:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean