From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:57:01 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] dnssec_t
In-Reply-To: <1234971327.23775.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1234971327.23775.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1234990621.5046.16.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:35 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> A question recently came up over on fedora-selinux-list on what type to
> assign to the DNSSEC private key file to make it unreadable by the DNS
> server.  There is a dnssec_t type defined in bind.te, but:
> a) it is assigned to /etc/rndc.key, which is not the same thing, and
> b) it is readable by named_t and by ndc_t.

I'd have to look some more into DNSSEC to be sure, but my knee-jerk
reaction is:

> So a few questions:
> 1) Should we be using a differently-named type for /etc/rndc.key that is
> closer to its actual purpose (TSIG key for authenticating commands
> between rndc and named)?

I'd say yes.

> 2) Do we need a new type for use for DNSSEC private key files that is
> unreadable by all domains other than unconfined and admin domains?

An alternative might be no_access_t, but I'm not so sure I like that.

> 3) Should we have a distinct type for DNSSEC public key files?

Not sure.
 
-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150