Re: 2.5.51 update and owlsm

Previous message: Niki Rahimi: "Re: some questions"
In reply to: Greg KH: "2.5.51 update and owlsm"
Next in thread: Greg KH: "Re: 2.5.51 update and owlsm"
Reply: Greg KH: "Re: 2.5.51 update and owlsm"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

crispinat_private

Greg KH wrote:

>I also fixed up the owlsm module, based on the fact that we don't have
>to have a bunch of "NULL" functions around anymore.  But in doing that I
>realized that it doesn't have a lot of the default capabilities
>functionality in it.  Now that the capability functions are exported,
>this is easy to add, if it's wanted.
>
>So should I add this?  Or is owlsm just a "test" module that will never
>be added to the main kernel tree?
>
OWLSM embodies several pathology prevention policies that are ideal for 
a module:

    * root doesn't follow symlinks in selected circumstances
    * non-root can't hard link to files owned by root
    * [new from Yiyang Fei] no ptrace for root processes

These policies are ideal for a module because they:

    * add security value for machines you want protected, so you want to
      be able to have them
    * can mess up some development and production environments, so you
      want to be able to remove them

So yes, I think the OWLSM module is ideal for inclusion in the mainline 
kernel.

It has not been maintained lately, because Chris has other priorities. 
If someone (Greg?) wants to work on OWLSM to bring it up to speed, that 
would be great. If not, we'll get to it eventually.

Thanks to Greg for the OWLSM improvements.

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX                      http://wirex.com/~crispin/
Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
			    Just say ".Nyet"