Shaz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Shaz wrote: Dear list, I was studying some earlier work on RBAC and came across Kuhn98 [1], which says that RBAC can be implemented if some interface function is used to map privilege sets of RBAC with MCS. James Moris blog article on MCS [2] states that MCS is just dicretionary like DAC if hierarchies like of MLS levels are not used. It might be because of the implementation of current LSPP on Linux distros. So my question is that can RBAC be used with SELinux if the mapping function is provided? Some further literature or existing work being pointed out will be appreciated. Thank you. [1] http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/rbac/documents/design_implementation/kuhn-98.pdf [2] http://james-morris.livejournal.com/5583.html-- ShazIm guessing the mapping function is "newrole" right! if then yeah you should be able too i.g. newrole -r *_r -- -c /usr/bin/* (or wherever/whatever your wanting to use in that role). might get complicated with the sensitivity levels and categories(that is if you really tweak them).Is this consistent with NIST RBAC standard to a greater extent? Never use roles in SELinux because thought it was just grouping of users.Justin P. Mattock -- Shaz
It should be of standard to NIST(if not then they should fix that) I don't see it as grouping users(but could be wrong), I see it as a way of confining the situation i.g. if you run an application in certain role, it's confined to that role and only the privileges that role provides. Justin P. Mattock -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
