lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: AppArmor FAQ
    Hi!

    > >> 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.
    Pavel
    --
    (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
    (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-09 16:55    [W:0.020 / U:31.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site