From: Shaya Potter <spotter@cs.columbia.edu>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:33:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46262C45.7000301@cs.columbia.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Line.LNX.4.64.0704180935100.25495@d.namei>
James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Without security labeling of the objects being accessed, you can't protect
> against software flaws, which has been a pretty fundamental and widely
> understood requirement in general computing for at least a decade.
And that's why apparmor should be implemented as a stackable file system
with a container mechanism, and I implemented such a thing back in 2003,
albiet mostly just proof of concept and a horribly written paper (it was
my first), so never got published beyond a tech report.
http://www.ncl.cs.columbia.edu/publications/cucs-005-04.pdf
Basically, on disk labeling is not necessarily an easy mechanism for app
armor type things as it's not easy to use and different applications
have different requirements so end up w/ multiple labels attached that
are difficult to understand. That's why app armor's path based rules
are nice, each app has its own set of rules, and one can easily eyeball
what rules apply to each app, as well as easily change it. However,
since apparmor has no conception of the actual file system, so it's
broken by design.
If on the other hand it was implemented as a stackable file system, each
fs object would be labeled. The same underlying FS could be used by
multiple distinct applications w/ distinct security issues, and one
could even combine it with something like unionfs to give each domain a
separate writable area, avoiding the "output file issue", where output
filess could be used to attack the system.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-18 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-16 21:33 AppArmor FAQ John Johansen
2007-04-17 0:20 ` James Morris
2007-04-17 15:03 ` David Safford
2007-04-17 16:00 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 18:05 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-17 17:47 ` James Morris
2007-04-17 18:10 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-17 20:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-04-17 20:50 ` James Morris
2007-04-17 21:16 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-17 21:41 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 22:12 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-17 22:29 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 21:58 ` Alan Cox
2007-04-18 13:45 ` James Morris
2007-04-18 14:33 ` Shaya Potter [this message]
2007-04-18 19:41 ` Crispin Cowan
2007-04-18 20:03 ` Shaya Potter
2007-04-18 21:14 ` James Morris
2007-04-19 17:14 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-06-09 21:01 ` Pavel Machek
2007-06-09 21:28 ` david
2007-06-09 23:02 ` Pavel Machek
2007-06-10 0:06 ` david
2007-04-18 20:15 ` David Lang
2007-04-19 17:27 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-17 21:48 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 23:12 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-04-17 22:26 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-19 17:46 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-20 18:45 ` David Lang
2007-04-20 19:23 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 23:09 ` Crispin Cowan
2007-04-17 23:20 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-19 17:56 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-17 21:55 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-17 22:55 ` Crispin Cowan
2007-04-17 23:13 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-06-09 14:11 ` Pavel Machek
2007-04-18 7:21 ` Rob Meijer
2007-04-18 7:08 ` David Lang
2007-04-18 13:33 ` James Morris
2007-04-18 12:15 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-04-18 13:31 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-04-18 14:05 ` Rob Meijer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46262C45.7000301@cs.columbia.edu \
--to=spotter@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).