lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v7 00/10] Landlock LSM: Toward unprivileged sandboxing
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, Mickaël Salaün wrote:

> ## Why a new LSM? Are SELinux, AppArmor, Smack and Tomoyo not good enough?
>
> The current access control LSMs are fine for their purpose which is to give the
> *root* the ability to enforce a security policy for the *system*. What is
> missing is a way to enforce a security policy for any application by its
> developer and *unprivileged user* as seccomp can do for raw syscall filtering.
>

You could mention here that the first case is Mandatory Access Control,
in general terms.



--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-28 05:40    [W:0.078 / U:26.208 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site