Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Valdis.Kletnieks
Date: Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:12 pm

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:29:58 EDT, Kyle Moffett said:


/me hands Kyle a dunce cap. :)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that both AppArmor and Smack have at least
the potential of qualifying as "securing the 2M lines of code".

The part that Kyle forgot was what most evals these days call the "protection
profile" - What's the threat model, who are you defending against, and just
how good a job does it have to do?  I'll posit that for a computer that
is (a) not networked, (b) doesn't process sensitive information, and (c) has
reasonable physical security, a security policy of "return(permitted);" for
everything may be quite sufficient.

(Of course, I also have boxes where "the SELinux reference policy with all
the MCS extensions plus all the LSPP work" is someplace I'm trying to get to).
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sat Aug 11, 10:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Arjan van de Ven, (Sat Aug 11, 12:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sat Aug 11, 12:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 10:48 am)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 12:41 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 12:50 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Sun Aug 19, 2:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Aug 22, 11:47 am)