linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 2 Jun 2007 04:30:30 +0000 (UTC)
From:	daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu writes:
>Experience over on the Windows side of the fence indicates that "remote bad
>guys get some local user first" is a *MAJOR* part of the current real-world
>threat model - the vast majority of successful attacks on end-user boxes these
>days start off with either "Get user to (click on link|open attachment)" or
>"Subvert the path to a website (either by hacking the real site or hijacking
>the DNS) and deliver a drive-by fruiting when the user visits the page".

AppArmor isn't trying to defend everyday users from getting phished or
social engineered; it is trying to protect servers from getting rooted
because of security holes in their network daemons.  I find that a
laudable goal.  Sure, it doesn't solve every security problem in the
world, but so what?  A tool that could solve that one security problem
would still be a useful thing, even if it did nothing else.

I don't find the Windows stuff too relevant here.  As I understand it,
AppArmor isn't aimed at defending Windows desktop users; it is aimed at
defending Linux servers.  A pretty different environment, I'd say.

Ultimately, there are some things AppArmor may be good at, and there
are also sure to be some things it is bloody useless for.  My hammer
isn't very good for screwing in screws, but I still find it useful.
I confess I don't understand the kvetching about AppArmor's goals.
What are you expecting, some kind of silver bullet?

A question I'd find more interesting is whether AppArmor is able to
meet its stated goals, under a reasonable threat model, and with what
degree of assurance, and at what cost.  But I don't know whether that's
relevant for the linux-kernel mailing list.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/