Re: AppArmor FAQ

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> >>>>I'm not sure if AppArmor can be made good security for the general case,
> >>>>but it is a model that works in the limited http environment
> >>>>(eg .htaccess) and is something people can play with and hack on and may
> >>>>be possible to configure to be very secure.
> >>>>
> >>>Perhaps -- until your httpd is compromised via a buffer overflow or
> >>>simply misbehaves due to a software or configuration flaw, then the
> >>>assumptions being made about its use of pathnames and their security
> >>>properties are out the window.
> >>>
> >>How is it that you think a buffer overflow in httpd could allow an
> >>attacker to break out of an AppArmor profile? This is exactly what
> >>AppArmor was designed to do, and without specifics, this is just
> >>FUD.
> >
> >No, it is not, I already broke AppArmor once, and it took me less then
> >one hour.
> >
> >Give me machine with root shell, and make app armor permit everything
> >but reading /etc/secret.file. AppArmor is not designed for this, but
> >if you want to claim your solution works, this looks like a nice test.
> >
> >Actually, give password to everyone, and see who breaks it first.
> 
> you admit that AA isn't designed for this and then you set this as the 
> test, doesn't that seem unreasonable to you?

httpd's run at root priviledge, AFAICT, and Crispin just accused
someone of spreading fud. Exploited httpd is root shell.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html