| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070628181943.GG5339@ucw.cz> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:19:44 +0000 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: David Wagner <daw-usenet@...erner.cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching Hi! One more... > 2. This is argument #1 in a different guise and I find it about as weak. > Pathname-based access control has strengths and weaknesses. I think > users and Linux distributions are in a better position to evaluate those > tradeoffs than L-K. Competition is good. It took you quite a lot of time to realize AA does not do IPC (and all the implications of that). I do not think Linux _users_ can do informed decision here. Novell marketing did too good job here. Heck, even I am not sure if I understand the implications of not doing IPC confinement. Is shared memory commonly used in a way that allows exploiting? I know it is a problem, and you probably could kill init from hacked apache..... but what would you do to break out of jail? Pavel (please cc me) -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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