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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <f5mn67$4d4$2@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:20:07 +0000 (UTC)
From:	daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation,
 pathname matching

James Morris  wrote:
>The point is that the pathname model does not generalize, and that 
>AppArmor's inability to provide adequate coverage of the system is a 
>design issue arising from this.

I don't see it.  I don't see why you call this a design issue.  Isn't
this just a case where they haven't gotten around to implementing
network and IPC mediation yet?  How is that a design issue arising
from a pathname-based model?  For instance, one system I built (Janus)
provided complete mediation, including mediation of network and IPC,
yet it too used a pathname model for its policy file when describing
the policy for the filesystem.  That seems to contradict your statement.
-
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/