Re: LIDS 2.2.0rc1 for kernel 2.6.6 is out

From: Huagang Xie (xie@private)
Date: Mon Jun 14 2004 - 11:26:08 PDT

  • Next message: Yuan Chunyang: "Re: a question about coming from security_socket_getpeersec ?"

    Thanks for Crispin pointing out those interesting papers.
    
    Since I am not a user of selinux, sorry I do not have the answer for
    the advantage/disavantage of the LIDS vs Selinux, but I just googled
    it and found one interesting paper at
    
    http://www.giac.org/practical/Rick_Larabee_GSEC.doc
    
    And a new member of LIDS team, purna, is working on some interesting stuff
    in the version of kernel 2.4, such as TPE, 
    
    http://www.lids.org/document/LIDS-TPE-feature.txt
    
    and LIDS TDE: Sandboxing an application
    
    http://forum.lids.org/viewtopic.php?t=14
    
    
    Thanks,
    Huagang
    
    On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:20:13AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > Michael Dean wrote:
    > 
    > >could you explain to me, simply, the advantages of lids over selinux?  
    > >Thanks
    > 
    > For a substantial treatment on the relative merits of a broad selection 
    > of intrusion prevention technologies, including several LSM packages 
    > (SELinux, DTE, and SubDomain) consider this book chapter:
    > 
    >    "Survivability: Synergizing Security and Reliability". Crispin
    >    Cowan. Book chapter in "Advances in Computers", Marvin V. Zelkowitz
    >    editing, Academic Press, 2004.  Buy "Advances in Computers" 60 here
    >    <http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/702750/description>.
    >    Chapter here PDF <http://immunix.com/%7Ecrispin/survivability.pdf>.
    > 
    > Unfortunately, the chapter does not specifically address LIDS. LIDS 
    > borrows some design elements from SubDomain (modeling access control on 
    > relating programs to accesses instead of users) but inverts it: 
    > SubDomain specifies the files a program can access, while (IIRC) LIDS 
    > specifies the programs that may access a file.
    > 
    > I don't know where the notion of listing the files that a program may 
    > access came from. It has antecedents in Janus (Goldberg, Wagner, Thomas, 
    > and Brewer, USENIX Security 1996) and TRON (Bermin, Bourassa, and 
    > Selberg, USENIX 1995).
    > 
    > The latter concept of listing the programs that may access a file was 
    > originally introduced in the PACLs (Program Access Control Lists) paper 
    > in 1990:
    > 
    > @inproceedings{
    >    pacl90,
    >    author = "D.R. Wichers and D.M. Cook and R.A. Olsson and J.
    >        Crossley and P. Kerchen and K. Levitt and R. Lo",
    >    title = "{PACL's: An Access Control List Approach to Anti-viral
    >        Security}",
    >    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 13th National Computer Security 
    > Conference",
    >    address = "Washington, DC",
    >    pages = "340--349",
    >    month = "October 1-4",
    >    year = 1990
    > }
    > 
    > Which of these concepts is "better" depends on what you are trying to 
    > assure.
    > 
    > Crispin
    > 
    > -- 
    > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.  http://immunix.com/~crispin/
    > CTO, Immunix          http://immunix.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 14 2004 - 11:28:59 PDT