--- Stephen Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems like a strawman. We aren't claiming that
> SELinux is perfect, and
> there is plenty of work ongoing on SELinux
> usability. But a
> fundamentally unsound mechanism is more dangerous
> than one that is never
> enabled; at least in the latter case, one knows
> where one stands. It is
> the illusory sense of security that accompanies
> path-based access
> control that is dangerous.
I suggest that this logic be applied to
the "strict policy", "targeted policy",
and "user written policy" presentations
of SELinux. You never know what the policy
might be.
Casey Schaufler
[email protected]
-
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]
