Re: [Linux-privs-discuss] SELinux & Linux-privs projects

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@ns.caldera.de>]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:31:44PM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > That's because those are the only operations POSIX systems
> > support! It's implicit in being a POSIX (DRAFT) standard.
> 
> You can define distinct operations (permissions) in the
> mandatory security policy for distinct kernel services
> without altering the interfaces or behavior for discretionary
> access controls. 

Sure you can.  But Posix 1003.1e is designed to fit nicely into
a UNIX/Posix enviroment.  And that's exactly why I like it.

> As discussed ad nauseum on the robust open source mailing list,
> Type Enforcement is desirable for its support for ensuring that
> applications are unbypassable and tamperproof, that processes
> with any sort of privileges cannot execute untrustworthy
> code, and for providing least privilege.

For this you have capabilities.  Look at the allowed set in filesystem
capabilities.  That's another fine part of Posix 1003.1e: it seperates
cleanly what does not belong together.

	Christoph

-- 
Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX.


--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.