On 10/17/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > >>> > >> The shortcut test is to su to the user in question and try to access the > >> file/device. The only slightly more complicated way is to walk down the > >> path looking at the permissions for user/group/other on the file and the > >> directories above. > > > > Well, these "traditional" methods didn't work for your friend Karl, > > since he was hacked with them. > > Perhaps he had a false sense of security from the supposed other layers > claimed to be present, when paying attention to the obvious would have > been more beneficial. That's the main reason I question the value of > SELinux in the first place. It doesn't come into play unless you have > already made a mistake with the simple things and it diverts attention > and makes it appear to be unimportant to get those things right. You know, this is why I don't even think it makes sense discuss these kind of things. So far, everyone arguing against SELinux is never fully aware of the facts at hand. First of all, you've launched yet another attack on SELinux simply because Karl said it was SELinux, never mind that there is a high likely hood that he is wrong. Now, you're insinuating that his expectations of SELinux caused him to practice poor traditional security and so he got hacked. Which completely ignores the fact that he did not have SELinux when he got hacked. And, just recently there are (unsubstantiated) claims from ebay that attacks from rooted Linux boxes are on the rise. I have no numbers, but by intuition is that very few of those boxes had SELinux running in enforcing mode, while they did have traditional UNIX security. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
