> In the security world, there is a huge tradition of the best being the
> enemy of the good --- and the best being so painful to use that people
> don't want to use it, or the moment it gets in the way (either because
> of performance reasons or their application does something that
> requires painful configuration of the SELinux policy files), they
> deconfigure it. At which point the "best" becomes useless.
>
> You may or may not agree with the philosophical architecture question,
> but that doesn't necessarily make it "broken by design". Choice is
> good; if AppArmor forces SELinux to become less painful to use and
> configure, then that in the long run will be a good thing.
SELinux kernel support can _almost_ do what AA does; with notable
exception of labels for new files. That can probably be fixed with
patch of reasonable size (or maybe even with LD_PRELOAD library, glibc
modification, or stuff like that). (There was post showing that in
this long flamewar).
That way you can have SELinux that works on AA config files.
(I still dislike path-based security, but labeling patch can probably
be useful for other stuff, too.)
Pavel
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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]
