linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit

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: <20080312164358.GA9540@ubuntu>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:43:58 +0200
From:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM-ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Audit-ML <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:40 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > --- Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > > > Hi!,
> > > > 
> > > > Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and 
> > > > AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd' 
> > > > userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on 
> > > > a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough.
> > > 
> > > Only question I have is whether audit folks are ok with reuse of the
> > > flags in this manner, and whether the _USER flag is best suited for this
> > > purpose if you are going to reuse an existing flag (since Smack label
> > > seems more like a SELinux type than a SELinux user).
> > 
> > To-mate-o toe-maht-o.
> > 
> > There really doesn't seem to be any real reason to create a new
> > flag just because the granularity is different. The choice between
> > _USER and _TYPE (and _ROLE for that matter) is arbitrary from a
> > functional point of view. I say that since Smack has users, but
> > not types or roles, _USER makes the most sense.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand, but Smack labels don't represent users (i.e.
> user identity) in any way, so it seemed like a mismatch to use the _USER
> flag there.  Whereas types in SELinux bear some similarity to Smack
> labels - simple unstructured names whose meaning is only defined by the
> policy rules.
> 

I think Casey meant the common use of Smack where a login program
(openssh, bin/login, ..) sets a label for each user that logs in, thus
letting each label effectively representing a user.

In a sense, smack labels share a bit of _USER and _TYPE.

> Regardless, it seems like the audit maintainers ought to weigh in on the
> matter.
> 

Indeed.

Regards,

-- 

"Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness"

Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.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/