[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4726A3A2.7060205@nttdata.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:23:14 +0900
From: Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...data.co.jp>
To: casey@...aufler-ca.com
CC: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>,
Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...ian.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static
interface)
On 10/25/2007 10:42 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> I agree that security code does need to provide security. What we
> need to get away from is the automatic attacks that are based on 20th
> century computer system assumptions. Things like "name based access
> control is rediculous", and "a module can't be any good if it doesn't
> deal with all objects", or "the granularity isn't fine enough". Look
> at TOMOYO. It's chuck full of good ideas. Why spend so much energy
> badgering them about not dealing with sockets? How about helping the
> AppArmor crew come up with acceptable implementations rather than
> whinging about the evils of hard links? And maybe, just maybe, we can
> get away from the inevitable claim that you could do that with a few
> minutes work in SELinux policy, but only if you're a security
> professional of course.
Casey,
Thank you introducing TOMOYO Linux. I really like your idea of
simplified MAC (and you work so hard!). I also find advantages
of AppArmor for distributing policies with less hustle. Finally
and most importantly, I respect SELinux as the first in-tree,
flexible and reliable security frame work and respect developers
involved.
As a project manager of TOMOYO Linux, I would like to
push it, of course. But I noticed, if each of LSM module
developer begin pushing their own code, that's not for the
sake of Linux and we may end up with chaos.
Instead of pushing TOMOYO Linux, I started developing
comparison chart of security-enhance Linux implementations.
The current version can be found in
http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/wiki-e/?WhatIs#comparison
I would like to receive feedbacks from Stephen, Crispin
(you already have a comparison, though :),
Casey and any people interested in. If possible,
I would like to include opinions from BSD people.
I would like LSM to be the result of common requirements.
"Common" means good in general, but not always for security
perspective. IMHO, I think it is possible for us to get to the
conclusion not to have a framework.
Cheers (and with love to Linux),
Toshiharu Harada
-
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