Re: Other Topics [BOF Notes]

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 14:58:39 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks"

    On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    
    > jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > 
    > > 1A) where it's particularly impossible to do this, the short-circuit
    > >     solutions (depending on implementation) seem good.  Mr. Smalley's
    > > suggestion of applying capabilities to this purpose is interesting... will
    > > it ALWAYS work?
    > 
    > It will always work, if you are willing to completely re-implement the
    > DAC logic inside your module.  It's kind of an extreme approach to resort to.
    > 
    
    "Extreme" being a relative term.  It does require modules go a long way
    to prove assurance (that the DAC logic is honored.)
    
    > 
    > 
    > > 2) I'd RATHER DAC not have to be determined before mymodule
    > >    (MAC?!?!) gets the result.
    > 
    > DAC is going to come before the module hooks.  That was one of the major
    > results of the BoF.
    
    That's a good result.  Just stating that I think it'll cost many, but not
    dearly.
    
    > 
    > 
    > > 3) I still see restrictive-only as being a valid "policy".  I hope that
    > >    the solutions presented don't inhibit that, and will build a "single
    > > stage" (non-multiplexing, but stacked) solution, that I will release
    > > freely and can be used to impose this.
    > 
    > I have no clue what you really mean here, as your point 3 seems to completely
    > contradict your point 1.
    
    
    Local vs. Global.  I do NOT think restrictive-only should be imposed by
    the interface, but serious thought has suggested to me that the *idea* is
    not ludicrous.
    
    insmod /lib/something/restrictive-lsm.o
    insmod /lib/something/module-x.o
    
    at that point, your module simply CAN NOT return a success when a failure
    was imposed by the DAC/in-kernel logic.   If it does, it ends up in the
    log.
    
    In essence, I think restrictive-only is a "major idea" and don't think
    authoritativeness encumbers it.  I know that modules can impose this
    easily in their own code, but I am convinced enough that I will build a
    stackable solution to return the interface to this mode, since I may be
    given this opportunity, with authoritative hook.
    
    >
    > 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
    > 
    
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  http://www.jmjones.com/
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Aug 16 2001 - 14:59:40 PDT