On 08/12/10 23:01, Warren Young wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 3:04 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> it is still not recommendable to trade security for simplicity.
>
> Security is never an absolute, is *always* a tradeoff against simplicity.
>
> We could store our servers 16 feet underground and encased in concrete
> to prevent tampering and accidental power cycling. We don't do that
> because union labor makes digging them back out when we really do
> intentionally want to power cycle them or perform physical maintenance
> impractical.
>
> Security is a continuum. One should rationally choose where along it
> one wants to be. There are defensible, rational reasons to choose to
> disable SELinux.
Indeed! As long as there are rational reasons for it and that the reason
is not "because it is bothersome and troublesome to me, so therefore I
always disable it".
For the vast majority of issues with SELinux, it possible to overcome
them using the provided tools. Of course, in a few scenarios, that is
still not enough or possible. In such cases, I agree, disabling it is
the only proper way to do.
But in my experience, such situations are very seldom. It is possible
to write pretty good SELinux policies yourself, by using audit2allow and
analysing what your program tries to do and why. Doing a good job with
a hand crafted SELinux module for your application removes your initial
reason why to disable SELinux.
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
