| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Line.LNX.4.64.0704172143150.21359@d.namei> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:56:49 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> To: David Wagner <daw@...berkeley.edu> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, David Wagner wrote: > Maybe you'd like to confine the PHP interpreter to limit what it can do. > That might be a good application for something like AppArmor. You don't > need comprehensive information flow control for that kind of use, and > it would likely just get in the way. SELinux can do this, it's policy-flexible. You can even simulate a pathame-based policy language with a consequential loss of control: http://seedit.sourceforge.net/ > might well use AppArmor. They solve different problems and have different > tradeoffs. There is room for more than one security tool in the world. That is not the point of this discussion, although we can at least be thankful that Linus didn't request that the networking layer be pluggable to the extent that the security layer is, otherwise we'd have a menagerie of "better" TCP stacks, TOE frameworks, STREAMS modules and whatever other fantastic ideas that people might be inclined to drag out of the kitchen sink. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> - 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