linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:29:40 -0400
From:	Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>
To:	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:04 -0700
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com> wrote:

> I am hoping for a reconciliation where the people who don't like
> AppArmor live with it by not using it. AppArmor is not intended to
> replace SELinux, it is intended to address a different set of goals.

You keep saying that.   But for that to be true you'd have to believe
_everyone_ using Novell distributions has needs that align exactly
with AppArmor.  Otherwise, how to explain that you don't offer and
support both SELinux and AppArmor to your users?

It seems as far as Novell is concerned, AppArmor _is_ meant to replace
SELinux.  Not that there is really anything wrong with that, but it's
a little disingenuous to then argue that they're meant to coexist.

Sean
-
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/