From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:11:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20070609141159.GA20094@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20070416213350.GB4030@suse.de> <1176846917.5946.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4625505C.6010802@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Karl MacMillan , James Morris , John Johansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Crispin Cowan Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4625505C.6010802@novell.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi! > >> Some may infer otherwise from your document. > >> > > Not only that, the implication that secrecy is only useful to > > intelligence agencies is pretty funny. > That was not the claim. Rather, that intelligence agencies have a very > strong need for privacy, and will go to greater lengths to get it, > including using MLS systems. I contend that while most organizations > want privacy, they don't want it so badly that they will put up with > MLS, and so are looking for a more tolerable form of security. > > This is relevant here because information flow is the main advantage of > labels over pathnames for access control. AppArmor does not attempt to > manage information flow, allowing it to use pathnames to achieve ease of > use. If you want information flow control, then by all means use a As SEEdit shows, you can still have ease-of-use with system capable of MLS.... so don't try to paint is as "pathnames are neccessary so it is easy to use". Just extend SELinux to handle new files. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html