linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

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: <700885.76235.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

--- Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 10:31 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > ...
> > I wouldn't expect the whole thing to be more than a couple week's
> > work for someone who really wanted to do it.
> 
> Note that Serge said "SELinux re-written on top of Smack", not "rewrite
> Smack to be more like SELinux".

Sorry, the subtlety of the difference seems insignificant to me.

> I don't believe the former is even
> possible, given that Smack is strictly less expressive and granular by
> design. Rewriting Smack to be more like SELinux should be possible,

As I outlined, it wouldn't be that hard to rewack SELinux from Smack.

> but seems like more work than emulating Smack on SELinux via policy,

Y'all keep saying that, but since noone has actually done that
SELinux policy, or anything like it, I maintain that it's not as
easy as you are inclined to claim. It is certainly not the "I'll
whip it up this weekend" sort of task that some have suggested.

> and to what end?

Well, there is that. I personally think that one implementation of
SELinux is plenty.

On the other hand, I think that if the concept of a single security
architecture has value the advocates of that position ought to be
looking at SELinux on/of Smack just as carefully as they look at
Smack on/of SELinux. If they are not, I suggest that the Single
Security Architecture argument is a sophistic device rather than
a legitimate issue of technology and should thus be ignored.

Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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/