Re: AppArmor FAQ

[Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 11:45 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
> > already happened to integrate such support into userland.
> >
> > To look at it in a slightly different way, the AA emphasis on not
> > modifying applications could be viewed as a limitation.  Ultimately,
> > users have security goals that go beyond just what the OS can directly
> > enforce and at least some applications (notably things like X, D-BUS,
> > PostgreSQL, etc) need to likewise support strong domain separation and
> > controlled information flow through their own internal objects and
> > operations.  SELinux provides APIs and infrastructure for such
> > applications, and has already done quite a bit of work in that space
> > (D-BUS support, XACE/XSELinux, SE-PostgreSQL), whereas AA seems to have
> > no interest in going there (and would have to recant its emphasis on no
> > application mods to do so).  If you actually want to truly confine a
> > desktop application, you can't limit yourself to the kernel.  And the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > label model provides a unifying abstraction for dealing with all of
> > these various objects, whereas the path/"natural abstraction" model has
> > no unifying abstraction at all.
> 
> 
> AA isn't aimed at confineing desktop applications. it's aimed at confining 
> server applications. this really is a easier task (if it happens to be useful 
> for some desktop apps as well, so much the better)
> 

Steve's point holds equally well for server applications - SE-PostgreSQl
is a good example.

Karl