Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 14:16:38 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"

    * frm crispinat_private "07/31/01 13:46:01 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    *
    
    *    * Give up. In for a penny, in for a pound.  Since we don't really get
    * simple      assurance, give up completely on this concept, and start using
    *      authoritative hooks.  This will (apparently) satisfy some needs of
    * JMJ,      possibly alleviate the MAC/DAC sequence tension between SGI and
    * WireX,      enable honeypot modules, and perhaps even make some other
    * folks happy.  The      cost is that the security requirements for
    * buglessness in LSM modules goes      waaay up, for *every* module.
    
    Guess which I prefer ? :-)
    
    Loading any kernel module is a privileged operation. "With privilege comes
    responsibility" (TM).
    
    Giving up is definetly the hardest thing to do, its a going to mean
    starting from scratch, and then convicing the wider community that the
    design decision was valid. But as you said, it does remove a number of
    issues that we haven't yet found a solution for.
    
    
    * 
    * Comments?
    * 
    * Crispin
    
    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 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 14:17:47 PDT