On 12/06/2012 06:05 PM, David McGuffey wrote: > Why isn't Firefox and Evolution confined with SELinux policy in a way > that APT can't damage the rest of the system? Why are we not sandboxing > these two apps with SELinux? Probably mostly because when you sandbox an X11 application, you can't copy and paste in or out of the application. Most users want to do that. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- From: Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:49:05 -0800
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <1354845900.7076.5.camel@desk4.mcguffeyfamily.net>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- From: Daniel J Walsh
- Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- References:
- Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- From: David McGuffey
- Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- Prev by Date: Wacom hotplug Xorg crash
- Next by Date: Re: gftp ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- Next by thread: Re: Advanced Persistent Threats; Why aren't we confining Firefox and Evolution?
- Index(es):
 |