On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
