Re: RBAC with SELinux MCS

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

 



Shaz wrote:


On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Shaz wrote:



        On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Justin P. Mattock
        <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
        <mailto: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

               --        Shaz

           Im 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.


Those privileges depend on the kind of object defined by the "class" and enforced by the object manager. I think its making sense to my stupid mind now :) I will appreciate if someone can clear out if this is consistent with the NIST standards.

That's fine
I'll add a CC to someone who has better knowledge than I with SELinux,

Thanks Justin.



    Justin P. Mattock






--
Shaz

Stephen if you can, and have the time could you help this person out with this question: 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


--
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.

[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux