Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, Simon Arlott <simon@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...>, Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 9:42 pm

--- Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> wrote:


I agree that security code does need to provide security. What we
need to get away from is the automatic attacks that are based on 20th
century computer system assumptions. Things like "name based access
control is rediculous", and "a module can't be any good if it doesn't
deal with all objects", or "the granularity isn't fine enough". Look
at TOMOYO. It's chuck full of good ideas. Why spend so much energy
badgering them about not dealing with sockets? How about helping the
AppArmor crew come up with acceptable implementations rather than
whinging about the evils of hard links? And maybe, just maybe, we can
get away from the inevitable claim that you could do that with a few
minutes work in SELinux policy, but only if you're a security
professional of course.

Sure, some LSM proposals will be lousy, and some really will be
better done as an SELinux policy module. Some will even have merit
but require unreasonable interface changes. As people who care
about security (y'all who are only from the LKML are excused) it
is our obligation to look beyond the preconceived notions of what
is and isn't secure. Security is subjective. It's how you feel
about it.



Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Oct 17, 10:18 pm)
Re: Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Sun Oct 21, 9:12 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Andreas Gruenbacher, (Fri Oct 19, 4:26 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Fri Oct 19, 5:07 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Oct 19, 4:40 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Oct 20, 7:05 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Sat Oct 20, 6:57 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 5:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Oct 23, 12:09 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], James Morris, (Tue Oct 23, 12:56 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Oct 23, 12:57 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 1:16 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 23, 8:31 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Wed Oct 24, 1:06 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 2:51 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 28, 3:25 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Mon Oct 29, 8:29 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Tue Oct 30, 9:11 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Greg KH, (Tue Oct 30, 11:30 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Xavier Bestel, (Tue Oct 30, 9:19 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 5:25 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 8:01 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 10:37 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 12:55 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Simon Arlott, (Sun Oct 28, 10:59 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sat Oct 27, 1:31 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Wed Oct 24, 9:42 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Toshiharu Harada, (Mon Oct 29, 11:23 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 3:42 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Oct 28, 4:46 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Thu Oct 25, 5:19 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Tue Oct 30, 5:41 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Toshiharu Harada, (Mon Oct 29, 11:37 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Arjan van de Ven, (Wed Oct 24, 10:19 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 8:32 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 5:10 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 5:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 5:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 21, 6:59 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 1:44 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 4:55 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 11:20 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 11:28 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 11:34 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 5:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 5:18 am)