Re: Changes to LSM phase 1 for audit.

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2001 - 23:51:00 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Names vs. Inodes"

    jmjonesat_private wrote:
    
    > On 21 Jul 2001, David Wagner wrote:
    >
    > > Jesse Pollard  wrote:
    > > >All of the systems I've used have MAC evaluated before DAC. [...]
    > > >It's also a bit more efficient for denial - [...]
    > >
    > > Why does the efficiency of denied requests matter?
    > > I couldn't think of any reason why we would want to optimize
    > > the performance of illegal operations.  What am I missing?
    >
    > My thinking is that it doesn't matter.  If you want to refuse, the
    > cost really doesn't matter.  HOWEVER, the cost of DETECTING a refusal
    > (before it is decided) is significant and should be minimized.
    
    Actually, there is some quite interesting research into the idea that if
    an application does too many weird things (such as accesses that get
    denied) the OS should start slowing the application down.  If the
    OS applies exponential slowdown, then the occasional "oops" doesn't
    impact legitimate apps, but a determined effort to find a hole results
    in the application slowing to a crawl.  Work by Anil Somayaji
    http://www.cs.unm.edu/~soma/pH/
    
    Crispin
    
    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Jul 20 2001 - 23:52:25 PDT