linux-kernel - Re: AppArmor Security Goal

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: <20071110225755.5dd9b52b@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:57:55 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>
Cc:	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	apparmor-dev <apparmor-dev@...ge.novell.com>
Subject: Re: AppArmor Security Goal

> Can you explain why you want a non-privileged user to be able to edit
> policy? I would like to better understand the problem here.

Because root doesn't trust users who in turn may not trust apps they run
or wish to control things. I don't see a problem with that viewpoint in
terms of forbidding things providing the user (or process tree) does not
get to undo rules merely add more restrictions.

> non-privileged user to further tighten the profile on a program. To me,
> that adds complexity with not much value, but if lots of users want it,
> then I'm wrong :)

Assuming you have any value in the first place, which is another topic, I
can see value for this in all the security models.

-
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/