From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.242.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3Q7917K023993 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 03:09:01 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id g10so3911223pdj.38 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([117.214.175.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oa3sm20545045pbb.15.2014.04.26.00.08.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <535B5AEE.2020806@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:36:22 +0530 From: dE MIME-Version: 1.0 To: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: Why is SELINUXTYPE policy specific? References: <5353BC31.3070404@gmail.com> <5355F720.7010605@gmail.com> <5356664E.7050309@tycho.nsa.gov> In-Reply-To: <5356664E.7050309@tycho.nsa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list" List-Post: List-Help: On 04/22/14 18:23, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 04/22/2014 12:59 AM, dE wrote: >> On 04/21/14 13:31, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:23 PM, dE wrote: >>>> There are 3 security models in which SELinux can work -- TE, RBAC and >>>> MLS. >>>> >>>> And there are 6 types of SELinux policies -- >>>> >>>> targeted, mls, mcs, standard, strict or minimum. >>>> >>>> Each security model requires it's own set of policies and the >>>> policies can >>>> be 1 of the 6 types. So can all the 3 security modles and 6 types be >>>> intermixed? Won't there be conflicts like with MLS and RBAC? >>> The SELINUXTYPE value should be seen as the name given to a policy >>> store. The contents (the actual policy, the features it supports, the >>> fact that it is MLS-enabled or not) have nothing to do with the name >>> of the store per se. It is just a matter of convenience that policy >>> stores are named in a particular way so that, cross-distributions, >>> security administrators can deduce the type and features of the policy >>> based on the name. >>> >>> For instance, on RHEL6, "targeted" is the name given to the policy >>> store that contains an MCS policy with support for unconfined domains. >>> On Gentoo, this name is rather used for non-MCS policy with support >>> for unconfined domains. >>> >>> Afaik, there is no conflict between RBAC and MLS. With MLS, the >>> SELinux subsystem allows or denies access based on the dominance rules >>> between the domains' security clearance and the resource sensitivity >>> level. RBAC instead allows or denies a SELinux role to be associated >>> with a particular domain. >>> >>> Wkr, >>> Sven Vermeulen >> So can policies which support RBAC can be made to have a different >> SELINUXTYPE? > You can use any SELINUXTYPE value you want; it is just an arbitrary name > for the policy. No inherent relationship to the underlying model or > configuration. > >> Can targeted, mls, mcs, standard, strict or minimum also be considered >> as different security models? Since all these are made based on the TE >> model, can we make a custom security model based on TE and give it a >> different SELINUXTYPE. > No, they are not different security models, just different > configurations of the same model, and you are mixing the notions of > SELINUXTYPE, TYPE and NAME. At most, you might say that mcs and mls are > different "models" since they use different sets of constraint > definitions but that's all just configuration data for SELinux... Sorry for the late response -- I was really busy setting up that graphics card. So I dont understand the purpose of SELINUXTYPE. Can someone please explain?