Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763586AbYHFDAx (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:00:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761030AbYHFDAl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:00:41 -0400 Received: from smtp109.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([98.136.44.54]:46258 "HELO smtp109.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760860AbYHFDAk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:00:40 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: LaEQC.MVM1moy2K42NwJvUAgrO7bVHFM62lC7R467Y0LdXMrTrP7Gf9uTmPYB1EwWaICPI_ObD5azv2fBvf9R6ghwMuwxZf1bhkHTssSBzkHZSa3tsTa.W.ByFFDy6l3k7c- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <489913CF.1010708@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:00:31 -0700 From: Casey Schaufler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Moore CC: Cliffe , Eric Paris , malware-list@lists.printk.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scanning References: <1217883616.27684.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4897C2A7.7020601@ii.net> <4897CC9C.2090906@schaufler-ca.com> <200808051656.28231.paul.moore@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200808051656.28231.paul.moore@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1412 Lines: 32 Paul Moore wrote: > On Monday 04 August 2008 11:44:28 pm Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> Cliffe wrote: >> >>> Other security schemes such as intrusion detection, >>> firewalls/netfilter, anti-malware, and application restrictions >>> (sandboxes such as jails or finer grained restrictions such as >>> AppArmor) could all register LSMs onto the stack. >>> >> Stacking is easy for files. It's a real pain in the backside for UDP >> packets. >> > > How is it any better/worse for UDP packets than files? > On delivery you'd need to decide what security scheme is actually available on the packet and in what order to interpret any inbound security data. If you had an MLS scheme that uses CIPSO, an integrity mechanism using IPSEC and a DAC scheme that assigns user ids by host address getting the ordering right and every domain registered properly in the networking stack would be a trick. Plus, making sure that any state the security scheme requires is tricky. Maybe it's not actually worse if the schemes agree on what qualifies as a security element, but if one scheme does access control outbound while another does inbound it will get hairy. -- 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/