From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20070417181016.GA10903@one.firstfloor.org> <657751.18080.qm@web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070417211653.GB11944@one.firstfloor.org> <20070417225815.000b0fdb@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Andi Kleen , Casey Schaufler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Return-path: Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.10]:51652 "EHLO mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752979AbXDRNpP (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:45:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070417225815.000b0fdb@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. - James -- James Morris