On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:17:30PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
quoted text
>=20
> --- Crispin Cowan <crispin@crispincowan.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Can you explain why you want a non-privileged user to be able to edit
> > policy? I would like to better understand the problem here.
> >=20
> > Note that John Johansen is also interested in allowing non-privileged
> > users to manipulate AppArmor policy, but his view was to only allow a
> > non-privileged user to further tighten the profile on a program. To me,
> > that adds complexity with not much value, but if lots of users want it,
> > then I'm wrong :)
>=20
> Now this is getting interesting. It looks to me as if you've implemented
> a mandatory access control scheme that some people would like to be able
> to use as a discretionary access control scheme. This is creepy after
> seeing the MCS implementation in SELinux, which is also a DAC scheme
> wacked out of a MAC scheme. Very interesting indeed.
>=20
hehe perhaps.  There are lots of issues involved with doing something
like this and there are more important issues to address first.
I also don't see it so much of a DAC scheme as a user defining a MAC
for their own processes they don't trust.  An application so confined
would not have the ability to change its confinement.