Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview

[Stephen Smalley]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven (arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > you must have a good defense against that argument, so I'm curious to
> > > > hear what it is
> > > 
> > > [I'm not from the apparmor people but my understanding is]
> > > 
> > > Usually they claimed name spaces as the reason it couldn't work.
> > 
> > I actually posted a list of 10 things that I made up in 3 minutes; just
> > going over those 10 would be a good start already since they're the most
> > obvious ones..
> 
> Yes, the conversation is all over the place.  Many of the issues are
> about some of the uglier parts of the AppArmor code, but the critical
> issue is simple.  Does their protection model actually protect against
> their threat model.  I would really like to see some grounded examples
> that show whether it's broken or not.

Difficult to evaluate, when the answer whenever a flaw is pointed out is
"that's not in our threat model."  Easy enough to have a protection
model match the threat model when the threat model is highly limited
(and never really documented anywhere, particularly in a way that might
warn its users of its limitations).

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

-
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/