Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2007 22:03 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Linux "Who's afraid of SELinux? Well, if you are, you shouldn't be! Thanks to the introduction of new GUI tools, customizing your system's protection by creating new policy modules is easier than ever. In this article, Dan Walsh gently walks you through the policy module creation process."
Thread beginning with comment 264949
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Hmm
by makfu on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
Member since:

"Linux is more secure than windows cuz blah blah blah lies blah blah lies blah... "

Well, technically EAL4+ is the certification for the level of assurance that the technical features are implemented correctly.

The protection profile is the actual set of security features evaluated, and as of right now the protection profiles that RHEL 5 is EAL4+ certified for are:

Controlled Access Protection Profile, Version 1.d

Labeled Security Protection Profile, Version 1.b

Role Based Access Control Protection Profile Version 1.0 (Archived)

This is roughly TCSEC B1 level security and the primary facilitator for Labeled and Role Protection is SELinux's MAC model.

Windows, while also EAL 4+, is only certified for the CAP Profile which is essentially TCSEC C2.

While NT 6 (Vista and Windows Server 2008) introduce Mandatory Integrity Control, this is not the same thing as a full MAC model (as MIC only enforces mandatory restrictions on modification of objects, not access to them). With the extension of the SACL on objects in NT 6, I wouldn't be surprised to see a full MAC model in the next release.

It's also interesting to take note of the configuration of the systems submitted for eval as those are the only components covered by the EAL. So, for example, Windows is EAL4+ certified for the CAP profile, including all its components, whereas RHEL isn't certified EAL for any profile if the configuration includes X (e.g. a graphical/workstation workload). This is where comparing the two becomes increasingly difficult, because one may be evaluated to support more workloads with certain features, while the other has more features but is limited in what workloads are covered.

These certifications and features may be great (and yes SELinux is pretty neat stuff), but it all comes down to systems/applications implementation and workloads, and in that respect, it is possible to build very secure solutions on either platform. However, for the moment, a proper SELinux implementation (e.g. RHEL) is certified for more stringent access protection profiles, though the configuration of Windows systems submitted potentially covers more workloads (but only up to the CAP profile).

Reply Parent Score: 3