Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758625AbXI3RkR (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:40:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756898AbXI3RkE (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:40:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46274 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755617AbXI3RkB (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:40:01 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Joshua Brindle Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:39:57 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Andrew Morton , casey@schaufler-ca.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , Paul Moore References: <46FEEBD4.5050401@schaufler-ca.com> <200709301042.26473.ak@suse.de> <46FFDCEF.20404@manicmethod.com> In-Reply-To: <46FFDCEF.20404@manicmethod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709301939.57542.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1297 Lines: 34 > CIPSO is supported on SELinux as well. That's no reason to extend that design mistake. > It certainly has uses where IPSec > is excessive. One example is someone I talked to recently that basically > has a set of blade systems connected with a high speed backplane that > looks like a network interface. CIPSO is useful in this case because > they can't afford the overhead of IPSec but need to transfer the level > of the connection to the other machines. The backplane is a trusted > network and that isn't a dangerous assumption in this case. If one of the boxes gets broken in all are compromised this way? > CIPSO also lets systems like SELinux and SMACK talk to other trusted > systems (eg., trusted solaris) in a way they understand. Perhaps, but is the result secure? I have severe doubts. > I don't > regularly support CIPSO as I believe IPSec labeling is more useful in > more situations but that doesn't mean CIPSO is never useful. Security that isn't secure is not really useful. You might as well not bother. -Andi - 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/