[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060918160217.97076.qmail@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Joshua Brindle <method@...too.org>,
David Madore <david.madore@....fr>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel mailing-list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM mailing-list <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 3/4: introduce new capabilities
--- Joshua Brindle <method@...too.org> wrote:
> And that is just practical stuff, there are still
> problems with
> embedding policy into binaries all over the system
> in an entirely
> non-analyzable way, and this extends to all
> capabilities, not just the
> open() one.
Your assertion that directly associating
the capabilities with the binary cannot
be analysed is demonstrably incorrect,
reference Common Criteria validation
reports CCEVS-VR-02-0019 and CCEVS-VR-02-0020.
The first system I took through evaluation
(that is, independent 3rd party analysis) stored
security attributes in a file while the second
and third systems attached the attributes
directly (XFS). The 1st evaluation required
5 years, the 2nd 1 year. It is possible that
I just got a lot smarter with age, but I
ascribe a significant amount of the improvement
to the direct association of the attributes
to the file.
Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists