> > So in general what is the benefits / costs for SELinux? > Benefits: Probably the most effective MAC for Linux. Once it runs it's arguably not too hard to allow/deny certain access due to some third party tools simplifying things a bit. You can't deny the NSA-grade security it brings which the U.S. military requires AT MINIMUM for critical infrastructure. Costs: Painfully overcomplicated. Painfully difficult to set up and configure. Requires well over half the core system to be patched to support it, potentially introducing bugs. There was a mondo security vulnerability a few years back that could actually use SELinux to grant unrestricted access to the system. Only a few filesystems actually have support for its attributes. Even its policies have to be recompiled if they have to change. Way too much can easily go wrong during set up without you having even the slightest clue how to figure out exactly what DID, turning "repairs" for SELinux into an almost weekend-long Google crawl. Benefits from a base Arch perspective: I can't honestly see how this would benefit Arch from putting it in the base group. Costs from a base Arch perspective: Big one being that it's entirely unnecessary, and base is meant to have ONLY what's needed to have a more or less FUNCTIONAL Linux system. Being secure is not a requirement of being functional. Other cost being that it would introduce an entirely new layer of configuration we don't need at install time, and would also guarantee that Arch would only be able to "officially" support the few filesystems that actually support SELinux's labelling. To sum up, it's GREAT when you actually NEED the security benefits it can bring, otherwise, it's better to seek out AppArmor (Which I believe is actually defunct.) or Tomoyo (Which I can never find any information on.), or just leave MAC off altogether if you're not doing anything altogether mission or security critical. Home desktop users would probably be better off ignoring MAC.
