Re: MAC before DAC vs DAC before MAC

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:23:44 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: MAC before DAC vs DAC before MAC"

    * frm dawat_private "07/26/01 18:20:29 +0000" | sed '1,$s/^/*
    /'
    *
    * richard offer  wrote:
    *> Take for example the case where a MAC check would deny access, and that
    *> the time to perform DAC checks is long.
    * 
    * It is rather difficult for me to imagine a reason why we should
    * worry about optimizing for syscalls that are disallowed by policy,
    * and that's putting it mildly.  (Some have even suggested the exact
    * opposite: namely, that, when you deny a request, you should delay
    * for some extra-long period, to deter attacks.)
    
    This gets annoying very quickly to real users doing real permitted things. 
    
    If "ls -l" requires going to out to the tape unit only then to return
    "permission denied", the time taken will be longer than it takes customers
    to file a bug. 
    
    In Trusted Irix, MAC not only protects the contents of a file, it protects
    the attributes of the file.
    
    
    richard.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
    "Specialization is for insects"
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:24:33 PDT