Re: About Auditing ...

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 08:53:30 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: About Auditing ..."

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:42:10 EDT, Ripin Natani <ripinfsat_private>  said:
    
    > I was going through the mail archives and found a lot of mails debating =
    > about the inclusion of auditing. So what is the status of auditing with =
    > SELinux ? I
    
    Auditing is *OUT*, currently.  The biggest problem is that any proper
    auditing scheme would require the logging of "fail" and "succeed" records
    for cases where the code had made the decision long before it ever got
    to the LSM hook.  The canonical example is 'touch foo; chmod 0 foo; cat foo" -
    there needs to be a "fail" logged on the permissions check, which never bothers
    calling LSM because it already KNOWS it has failed.
    
    To fix this would require one of:
    
    1) *MUCH* more intrusive hooking to add logging at the appropriate points.
    
    2) Changing LSM to be an "authoritative" rather than "restrictive" system, so
    the LSM hooks would ALWAYS be called.
    
    Both were considered undoable for the 2.6 timeframe.
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 12 2003 - 08:54:36 PDT