Re: permissive vs. restrictive issue and solutions...

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 12:23:08 PDT

  • Next message: sarnoldat_private: "Re: permissive vs. restrictive issue and solutions..."

    > To preserve the assurance argument for LSM, I would very much like it if
    > LSM provided purely restrictive hooks.  Stephen Smalley pointed out that
    > I overstated myself:  Capabilities is not purely permissive, it is a mix.
    > However, I conjecture that Capabilities is the ONLY permissive module on the
    > table.
    > 
    > Can anyone dispute this claim?  Got an example of some other module that wants
    > to be permissive?
    
    Although SELinux is currently only "restrictive", we would like to
    provide functionality similar to the capabilities mechanism using
    Type Enforcement, as we did in the DTOS prototype.  That requires the
    ability to be "permissive" as well.  Partitioning superuser privileges
    and assigning them to specific authorized users and programs is
    useful functionality, and is already present in many Unix
    variants.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 12:24:27 PDT