linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 00/45] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:48 -0700
From:	John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	jjohansen@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview

On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700
> jjohansen@...e.de wrote:
> 
> before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get
> the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code.
> 
yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review.

> In addition, I'd like to ask you to put a file in Documentation/
> somewhere that describes what AppArmor is intended security protection
> is (it's different from SELinux for sure for example); by having such a
> document for each LSM user, end users and distros can make a more
> informed decision which module suits their requirements... and it also
> makes it possible to look at the implementation to see if it has gaps
> to the intent, without getting into a pissing contest about which
> security model is better; but unless the security goals are explicitly
> described that's a trap that will keep coming back... so please spend
> some time on getting a good description going here..
> 
yes this is needed and a good idea in general

thanks
john

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped