login
Header Space

 
 

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

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 8:16 pm

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Peter Dolding wrote:


since the method of stacking hasn't been determined yet, you can't say 
this.

it would be possible for MultiAdmin to grant additional access, that 
SELinux then denies for it's own reasons.

if the SELinux policy is written so that it ignores capabilities, and 
instead just looks at uid0 then that policy is broken in a stacked 
environment, but it's the polciy that's broken, not the stacking.

yes, there will be interactions that don't make sense, but just becouse 
something can be used wrong doesn't mean that there aren't other cases 
where it can be used properly.

David Lang
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., , (Tue Oct 30, 8:16 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Nov 6, 11:35 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Nov 7, 12:34 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:01 am)
speck-geostationary