> On Aug 19, 2007, at 17:12:41,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:29:58 EDT, Kyle Moffett said:
> >> If you can show me a security system other than SELinux which is
> >> sufficiently flexible to secure those 2 million lines of code
> >> along with the other 50 million lines of code found in various
> >> pieces of software on my Debian box then I'll go put on my dunce
> >> hat and sit in the corner.
> >
> > /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.
>
> Well, in this case the "box" I want to secure will eventually be
> running multi-user X on a multi-level-with-IPsec network. For that
> kind of protection profile, there is presently no substitute for
> SELinux with some X11 patches. AppArmor certainly doesn't meet the
> confidentiality requirements (no data labelling), and SMACK has no
> way of doing the very tight per-syscall security requirements we have
> to meet.
