[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1181942915.9809.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:28:35 -0400
From: Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, jjohansen@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation,
pathname matching
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >
> > Yup, I see that once you accept the notion that it is OK for a
> > file to be misslabeled for a bit and that having a fixxerupperd
> > is sufficient it all falls out.
> >
> > My point is that there is a segment of the security community
> > that had not found this acceptable, even under the conditions
> > outlined. If it meets your needs, I say run with it.
>
> If that segment feels that way, then I imagine AA would not meet their
> requirements today due to file handles and other ways of passing around
> open files, right?
>
> So, would SELinux today (without this AA-like daemon) fit the
> requirements of this segment?
>
Yes - RHEL 5 is going through CC evaluations for LSPP, CAPP, and RBAC
using the features of SELinux where appropriate.
Karl
-
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