Re: Frustrated with capabilities..

David P. Quigley
2008-08-29T14:38:19Z

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 21:47 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> David P. Quigley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 13:48 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 05:45:34PM +0300, Markku Savela wrote:
> >>
> >>>> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, you need upcoming filesystem capabilities. Binary may not
> >>>> inherit capabilities unless filesystem flags permit that.
> >>>>
> >>> I think this is wrong. Normal executables inherit uid/gid and
> >>> supplementary groups by default. Why should capabilities be any
> >>> different?
> >>>
> >> Well, because that's not the what the POSIX draft specification (and
> >> the rest of the Unix industry who were striving to meet the US
> >> Department of Defense's "B2 by '92" initiative) ended up implementing.
> >>
> >
> > Minor nit. It was actually C2(Controlled Access Protection) by '92 which
> > is mainly just DAC protections as opposed to B2(Structured Protection)
> > which also included MAC policies and Sensitivity labels in addition to
> > DAC protections
>
> But the fun part was that the evaluation requirements for B1,
> which fell in between C2 and B2 (the order from least secure to
> most was D, C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1, and "Beyond A1") where so
> close to those for C2 that everyone implemented B1, which did
> include MAC policy in the form of Bell and LaPadula sensitivity.
> The privilege model (now called capabilities, and you have to buy
> me a beer to get the whole story) does not actually come in the
> requirements until B3, although some people will argue that it
> was intended they be included at B2. Even though no one even tried
> a B3 and no one succeeded at B2 everyone did capabilities based
> on one of the drafts or another.
>
> Anyone who thinks that the capability scheme is wrong headed is
> encouraged to read the P1003.1e/2c (withdrawn) DRAFT. It's on
> the web in several places. You may end up still thinking it's
> wrong, but at least you will have seen how the arguments got
> hashed out.
>
> And we're still not talking about the Jackson Hole meeting.
>

And one wonders why these certs aren't in use anymore ;)

Dave