Re: Recent status of SE-PostgreSQL

[Joshua Brindle <method@manicmethod.com>]

The answer is that there have been a few iterations of "the whole nine yards" 
wrt MAC on Postgres. The upstream developers were never interested in reviewing 
a patch that large or intrusive and finally a compromise was struck to begin 
merging parts that are less intrusive while making improvements to the entire 
codebase and preparing to integrate more access control.

If you don't believe me go read both this list and the pgsql-hackers list, there 
should be about 2000 emails of interest.

So it may not meet your needs today, but it is a very important step and a long 
time coming.

cto@itechfrontiers.com wrote:
> Casey,
>
> The problem is you just stuck to one part of the argument and do not see the
> broad picture,
>
> I never claimed anything ( here at least ), I just asked what is the practical
> purpose of SE-PostgreSQL and it had one line answer,
>
> "creating trusted DBMS daemon", and I see that
>
> and of course nobody claims that the SE-PostgreSQL is a done project
>
> so one has to wait until SE-PostgreSQL reaches the point,
>
> I told it is possible to put databases on separate systems by classification,
> NOT SUCH a BIG DEAL, (while maintaining other forms of security measure
> including filesystem encryption and etc.)
> THIS IS ACTUALLY BEING UTILIZED as I'm aware of
>
> and there are Trusted Daemons nobody says there is no trusted daemon,
> The point is right now I think PostgreSQL is not qualified as a trusted daemon
>
> but even right now you can use something like that in isolation, without
> combining classifications
>
> SO THIS IS MY QUESTION NOW:
> I would be very glad if anybody provides any documentation that PostgreSQL is
> currently treated as trusted daemon,
>
> and thanks for your recommendation,
>
> With all due respect to everybody especially KaiGai,
>
> Let me clear that out, there is no objection of any kind on development of
> something, but what you claimed are not available at Postgres right now, and
> there are so many missing parts not just access control, and the point that it
> is being acceptable as trusted system is just a goal
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Patrick K.
>
>
> On 12/9/2010 12:47 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 12/9/2010 8:46 AM, cto@itechfrontiers.com wrote:
>>> Joshua,
>>>
>>>> Postgres is inherently trusted with it's own objects, the kernel cannot
>>>> mitigate that.
>>>
>>> Aha that's the point, daemons cannot be trusted, in case of DBMS it must be
>>> isolated anyway, (System Security wise)
>>
>> I think that we can stop right here. Patrick, you need to go read up
>> on the composition of trusted systems. You also need to put a little
>> time into learning about their history. There were almost as many
>> Orange Book evaluations on multi-level secure databases as there were
>> on operating systems. All of the evaluated operating systems, with
>> the possible exception of SC/MP, made heavy use of trusted daemons.
>> Applications that enforce system policy are an expected and important
>> part of any security solution.
>>
>> Patrick, the evidence is against your claims. Please have a look at
>> the literature and come back if you have questions.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing 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.
>

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing 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.