Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks

[Chris Wright]

* Crispin Cowan (crispin@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> However, I assert (emphatically :) that the broader user community has
> integrity and availability as higher priorities than secrecy, and that
> pathname-based access control is a better way to achieve that. I want to
> offer Linux users the choice of pathname-based access control if they
> want it. Why do you want to prevent them from having that choice?

I'm in favor of choice.  And it's no doubt that users appreciate the
intuitiveness of pathname based security.  The real question is the
actual security of the system.  What we don't want is a choice that
embodies any false sense of security.  So that is why it's important to
understand how AppArmor protects from the pathname based attacks.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/