Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752899AbXE3DAb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 23:00:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751249AbXE3DAY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 23:00:24 -0400 Received: from taverner.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.168.222]:55720 "EHLO taverner.cs.berkeley.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbXE3DAY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 23:00:24 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 3901 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 23:00:24 EDT To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: isaac.lists.linux-kernel Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Message-ID: References: <653438.15244.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070529144518.GD5840@ucw.cz> <20070529233041.GC24200@elf.ucw.cz> Reply-To: daw-usenet@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) NNTP-Posting-Host: taverner.cs.berkeley.edu X-Trace: taverner.cs.berkeley.edu 1180489605 26009 128.32.168.222 (30 May 2007 01:46:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 01:46:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1193 Lines: 19 david@lang.hm wrote: > no, this won't help you much against local users, [...] Pavel Machek wrote: >Hmm, I guess I'd love "it is useless on multiuser boxes" to become >standard part of AA advertising. That's not quite what david@ said. As I understand it, AppArmor is not focused on preventing attacks by local users against other local users; that's not the main problem it is trying to solve. Rather, it's primary purpose is to deal with attacks by remote bad guys against your network servers. That is a laudable goal. Anything that helps reduce the impact of remote exploits is bound to be useful, even if doesn't do a darn thing to stop local users from attacking each other. This means that AppArmor could still be useful on multiuser boxes, even if that utility is limited to defending (some) network daemons against remote attack (or, more precisely, reducing the damage done by a successful remote attack against a network daemon). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/