From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750968AbWDXQyJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:54:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750888AbWDXQyI (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:54:08 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:62632 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbWDXQyH (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:54:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks) From: Arjan van de Ven To: David Lang Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Alan Cox , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Ken Brush , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <4446D378.8050406@novell.com> <200604201527.k3KFRNUC009815@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200604211951.k3LJp3Sn014917@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200604230945.k3N9jZDW020024@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060424082424.GH440@marowsky-bree.de> <1145882551.29648.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060424125641.GD9311@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1145887333.29648.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060424140407.GD22703@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:50:53 +0200 Message-Id: <1145897454.3116.47.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > the 'hard shell, soft center' approach isn't as secure as 'full > hardening' (assuming that both are properly implemented), but the fact > that it's far easier to understand and configure the hard shell means that > it's also far more likly to be implemented properly. I can certainly see value in a "take away degrees of freedom" approach. In fact many security approaches are just that, and that's just fine with me, and clearly of value. There is a distinction between really taking away a degree of freedom and just appearing to do so + easy workaround. Which is why we're having this discussion, to make sure AppArmor is of the former type ;)