Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 19:40:17 PST

  • Next message: David Wagner: "Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"

    LA Walsh wrote:
    
    >>From: Crispin Cowan
    >>
    >>LSM does have a careful design.... meeting a 
    >>goal stated by Linus nearly two years ago.
    >>    
    >>
    >	A security model that mediates access to security objects by
    >logging all access and blocking access if logging cannot continue is
    >unsupportable in any straight forward, efficient and/or non-kludgy, ugly
    >way. 
    >
    Because Linus asked for access control support, not audit logging 
    support, it is not surprising that logging models don't fit so well.
    
    >  Some security people were banned from the kernel
    >devel. summit because their thoughts were deemed 'dangerous': fear was they
    >were too persuasive about ideas that were deemed 'ignorant' and would
    >fool those poor kernel lambs at the summit.
    >
    Internal SGI politics.
    
    >	Also unsupported: The "no-security" model -- where all security 
    >is thrown out (to save memory space and cycles) that was desired for embedded work.
    >
    False: capabilities is now a removable module, which is what Linus asked 
    for.
    
    >	LSM also doesn't support standard LSPP-B1 style graded security
    >where mandatory access checks are logged as security violations before
    >DAC checks are even looked at for an object.
    >
    Because doing so would have required approx. 6-10X as many LSM hooks as 
    the current LSM. Speak up if you think LSM should be 10X bigger to be 
    able to support Common Criteria standards compliant audit logging ...
    
    >	At one point a plan was proposed (by Casey Schaufler, SGI) and 
    >_\implemented\_ (team members & prjct lead Linda Walsh) to move all
    >security checks out of the kernel into a 'default policy' module.
    >The code to implement this was submitted to the LSM list in June 1991.
    >
    And I actually like that plan. But I still believe it to be too radical 
    for 2.6. It has many nice properties, but is much more invasive to the 
    kernel. I think it is a very interesting idea for 2.7, and should be 
    floated past the maintainers who will be impacted to see if it has a 
    hope in hell.
    
    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"
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 19:41:06 PST