Re: Fwd: [Linux Security Module Interface]

From: Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Linux Security Module Interface]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:20:48 +0200

Next Article (by Date): Re: uml Amon Ott
Previous Article (by Date): Re: syslog-ng Amon Ott
Top of Thread: Fwd: [Linux Security Module Interface] Fabrice MARIE
Next in Thread: Re: Fwd: [Linux Security Module Interface] Fabrice MARIE
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

On Mit, 11 Apr 2001 Fabrice MARIE wrote:
> What do you think about that ?
> Would it make RSBAC more widely used ?
> Is it a security threat to enable this kind
> of security feature at the module level ?
> What about a box without RSBAC/SElinux/StJude
> that would be rooted ... an attacker would have
> even more evil power with your kernel ?
> What do you guys think ?

It just would not be sufficient to support RSBAC. What we would need is
something much more general that is deep inside the kernel.

Apart from that, it would sure be as insecure as any system where you can load
modules before security is active. Even RSBAC with only REG modules suffers
from this problem. This is why the fixed RSBAC models cannot be kernel modules,
but rather have to be compiled in.

The Generic Access Control Interface list
(http://www.compuniverse.de/lwgate/gaci) I initiated last year was meant to make
such a discussion with all important projects participating. It should lead to
a common interface that could become part of the official kernel in 2.5 *and*
support all these projects.

Unfortunately, there was too little interest, and specially too little
contribution apart from 'read my paper about xy or our project specs'. So I
stopped my work on GACI, but the list still exists and could be revived.

Amon.
-
To unsubscribe from the rsbac list, send a mail to
majordomo@rsbac.org with
unsubscribe rsbac
as single line in the body.

Go to Compuniverse LWGate Home Page.