Re: constraining an app in targeted policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Benjamin Youngdahl wrote:
Stephen, thanks for your help. Why I thought the restricted application was running with all the power of an unconfined_t process is that the bentest script was:
#!/bin/sh
ps -Z
touch /usr/bentest/touched
touch /usr/touched

All the commands in this file succeeded. I expected them all to fail (including the shell invocation itself), as I hadn't explicitly given any "allow"s to bentest_t. The file contexts were: /usr/bentest gen_context(system_u:object_r:bentest_t,s0) /usr/bentest/bentest -- gen_context(system_u:object_r:bentest_exec_t,s0)

The system is running in enforcing mode according to "getenforce". The files were correctly labeled. I was running as root, but I expected that wouldn't matter.

I must be misunderstanding the fundamentals here. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Please show us your te file?
Ben

On 12/20/05, *Stephen Smalley* <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 23:16 -0600, Benjamin Youngdahl wrote:
    > I have a question on locking down an application under the targeted
    > policy.
    >
    > The policy module I've tried is below.  I can see that the
    process has
    > the appropriate type in "ps -Z".:
    >
    > root:system_r:bentest_t:SystemLow-SystemHigh 13127 pts/1 00:00:00
    > bentest
    >
    > But it still appears to have all the power of "unconfined_t".  I
    did
    > to a "restorecon -RF", and the files are appropriately labeled.

    What makes you say it has all the power of unconfined_t?

    > Is it possible for an app to confine "unconfined_t", or should I be
    > switching over to the replacement for the strict policy?  (I
    think it
    > is just called "mls" at this point, which is a confusing name
    > considering that targeted itself is an "mls" it seems.)

    You should be able to confine a particular application under targeted
    policy, just by putting it into its own domain, as you seem to be
    doing.
    No need to switch to strict policy for that.  MLS has a specific
    meaning, not relevant here.

    --
    Stephen Smalley
    National Security Agency


------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-selinux-list mailing list
fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list


--


--
fedora-selinux-list mailing list
fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux