On 2/24/06, Robert Nichols <rnicholsNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Benjy Grogan wrote:
> I'm in favor of SELinux. I've heard that when writing these policies
> the developers have actually improved the applications themselves. They
> realized that an application didn't really need this or that permission
> and so they adjusted the code and wrote an even better policy. SELinux
> seems to have some use in debugging software.
>
> If people are afraid of SELinux I think what's need is more education on
> it. more "layman" articles getting across a few of the "ideas" behind
> SELinux.
The problem with SELinux is that anyone whose use of a computer involves
more than clicking on icons is pretty much forced to become an SELinux
guru. Simple things like "ping xxx >$HOME/ping.result" failing because
ping isn't allowed to write to user_home_t don't make people big fans
of SELinux. I fought with SELinux for quite a while, left it in
permissive mode, ran audit2allow on whatever complaints turned up, and
resolved to use enforcing mode if I could ever get through a week
without seeing more "AVC ... denied" complaints. Never made it.
Finally gave up, deleted the ACLs from the file systems, and added
"selinux=0" as a kernel parameter.
Lots of work to be done. Security must be taken seriously. Higher-level functionality will hopefully make SELinux easier to use in future. Can't compromise on security. Powerful security must become mainstream.
Benjy
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
