On 08/31/2010 05:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 00:14:09 +0900, > Takehiko Abe<keke@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> ;;; sorry other one goes straight to you >> >> > Linus is not exactly famous for his ability to understand security >> > concepts. I find the fact your argument is produced by google and >> > cut/paste rather than technical material ... enlightening >> >> Well, please educate me. All I hear from advocates is "more security" >> without a concrete example. You mentioned the danger of emails get >> stolen without SELinux. Please give me the scenario. So we can gauge >> the risk. > > If you read email you need selinux. If you read email with a client that > fires up plugins to read special content (e.g. html, pdfs, flash) then you > really need selinux. > > If you use a web browser to view more than a short list of trusted sites, > you need selinux. > > If you run network services accessible from outside the machine then you > need selinux. > > If you run binaries from semitrusted groups (this includes most commercial > software) then you need selinux. You don't _need_ SELinux in any such cases. SELinux is aiming at catching malfunctioning/misbehaving programs and _may_ prevent damage in use-cases such as those you list. However, SELinux also causes mal-functions and prevents applications from operating properly. Semi-educated tweaking SELinux may even cause further damage up to rendering systems completely unusable. To me this means: If the defaults work, use it. If it doesn't, switch it off, otherwise you might easily shoot yourself into the foot. Ralf -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
