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:	Tue, 29 May 2007 17:17:10 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
Cc:	Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...il.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

On Mon, 28 May 2007 21:54:46 EDT, Kyle Moffett said:

> Average users are not supposed to be writing security policy.  To be  
> honest, even average-level system administrators should not be  
> writing security policy.  It's OK for such sysadmins to tweak  
> existing policy to give access to additional web-docs or such, but  
> only expert sysadmin/developers or security professionals should be  
> writing security policy.  It's just too damn easy to get completely  
> wrong.

The single biggest challenge in computer security at the present time is how to
build *and deploy* servers that stay reasonably secure even when run by the
average wave-a-dead-chicken sysadmin, and desktop-class boxes that can survive
the best attempts of Joe Sixpack's "Ooh shiny" reflex, and Joe's kid's attempts
to evade the nannyware that Joe had somebody install.

(If you know how to build such things, don't bother replying.  If you have
actual field experience on getting significant percents of Joe Sixpacks to
switch, I need to buy you a beer or something.. ;)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped