linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20070622113727.GJ20105@marowsky-bree.de>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:37:27 +0200
From:	Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@...e.de>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>, 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 2007-06-22T07:19:39, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:

> > > Or can access the data under a different path to which their profile
> > > does give them access, whether in its final destination or in some
> > > temporary file processed along the way.
> > Well, yes. That is intentional.
> > 
> > Your point is?
> 
> It may very well be unintentional access, especially when taking into
> account wildcards in profiles and user-writable directories.

Again, you're saying that AA is not confining unconfined processes.
That's a given. If unconfined processes assist confined processes in
breeching their confinement, yes, that is not mediated.

You're basically saying that anything but system-wide mandatory access
control is pointless.

If you want to go down that route, what is your reply to me saying that
SELinux cannot mediate NFS mounts - if the server is not confined using
SELinux as well? The argument is really, really moot and pointless. Yes,
unconfined actions can affect confined processes. 

That's generally true for _any_ security system.

> > That is an interesting argument, but not what we're discussing here.
> > We're arguing filesystem access mediation.
> IOW, anything that AA cannot protect against is "out of scope".  An easy
> escape from any criticism.

I'm quite sure that this reply is not AA specific as you try to make it
appear.

> > Yes. Your use case is different than mine.
> My use case is being able to protect data reliably.  Yours?

I want to restrict certain possibly untrusted applications and
network-facing services from accessing certain file patterns, because as
a user and admin, that's the mindset I'm used to. I might be interested
in mediating other channels too, but the files are what I really care
about. I'm inclined to trust the other processes.

Your use case mandates complete system-wide mediation, because you want
full data flow analysis. Mine doesn't.

Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde

-
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/