William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>> I presumed an ELF note or extended filesystem attributes were already
>>> in place for this sort of affair. It may be that the model implemented
>>> is so restrictive that users are forbidden to create new executables,
>>> in which case using a different model is certainly in order. Otherwise
>>> the ELF note or attributes need to be implemented.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:37:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Another thing to keep in mind, since we're talking about security
>> policies in the first place, is that anything like this *MUST* be
>> "opt-in" on the part of the security policy, because what we're talking
>> about is circumventing an explicit security policy just based on a
>> user-provided binary saying, in effect, "don't worry, I know what I'm
>> doing."
>> Changing the meaning of an established explicit security policy is not
>> acceptable.
>
> This is what I had in mind with the commentary on the intentions of the
> policy. Thank you for correcting my hamhanded attempt to describe it.
>
Right. It's important to notice that it's actually more of an issue if
the user can create executables, but the policy doesn't want to allow
them to run bypassing the policy.
-hpa
-
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]
