Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754757AbXKKDzT (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:55:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751249AbXKKDzF (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:55:05 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52413 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751113AbXKKDzD (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:55:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:55:12 -0800 From: John Johansen To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Crispin Cowan , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel Mailing List , LSM ML , apparmor-dev Subject: Re: AppArmor Security Goal Message-ID: <20071111035512.GC19216@suse.de> References: <47363381.4030103@crispincowan.com> <601618.10362.qm@web36602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <601618.10362.qm@web36602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2012 Lines: 52 --Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 06:17:30PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: >=20 > --- Crispin Cowan wrote: >=20 > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > ... > > > > 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. > >=20 > > Note that John Johansen is also interested in allowing non-privileged > > users to manipulate AppArmor policy, but his view was to only allow a > > 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 :) >=20 > Now this is getting interesting. It looks to me as if you've implemented > a mandatory access control scheme that some people would like to be able > to use as a discretionary access control scheme. This is creepy after > seeing the MCS implementation in SELinux, which is also a DAC scheme > wacked out of a MAC scheme. Very interesting indeed. >=20 hehe perhaps. There are lots of issues involved with doing something like this and there are more important issues to address first. I also don't see it so much of a DAC scheme as a user defining a MAC for their own processes they don't trust. An application so confined would not have the ability to change its confinement. --Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHNn0gi/GH5xuqKCcRAgCEAJ4tYWm05CIIgkNTV2LyilKQhYth+gCdEE05 4Qk61S8Ki8lofEfq3jpbuZ8= =9hwT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN-- - 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/