On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I'm not sure if AppArmor can be made good security for the general case,
but it is a model that works in the limited http environment
(eg .htaccess) and is something people can play with and hack on and may
be possible to configure to be very secure.
Perhaps -- until your httpd is compromised via a buffer overflow or
simply misbehaves due to a software or configuration flaw, then the
assumptions being made about its use of pathnames and their security
properties are out the window.
How is it that you think a buffer overflow in httpd could allow an
attacker to break out of an AppArmor profile? This is exactly what
AppArmor was designed to do, and without specifics, this is just
FUD.
No, it is not, I already broke AppArmor once, and it took me less then
one hour.
Give me machine with root shell, and make app armor permit everything
but reading /etc/secret.file. AppArmor is not designed for this, but
if you want to claim your solution works, this looks like a nice test.
Actually, give password to everyone, and see who breaks it first.
you admit that AA isn't designed for this and then you set this as the
test, doesn't that seem unreasonable to you?
SELinux may be designed to protect against a local root user, AA is not.
different tools, different tasks.
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
