Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2007 11:02 UTC, submitted by irbis
Linux "Should Security Enhanced Linux be designated as the sole security framework for Linux? While most security specialists would agree on the high quality of SELinux, proponents are arguing this framework is the only one that should be needed for the open-source operating system kernel. In fact, it would eliminate the need for the Linux Security Module, an open platform for outsider developers to build their own security frameworks for Linux. And this idea has raised the ire of Linux keeper Linus Torvalds."
Thread beginning with comment 279724
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: SELinux
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE: SELinux"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
So a rogue binary would just bypass SELinux? Beautiful. What's the point of SELinux again?
"""

Traditional file permissions, however, would not be bypassed. Assuming, of course, that one did not neglect to double check them out of a false sense of security conferred by SELinux, or due to allotting too much time to resolving some subtle bug in a vendor-supplied SELinux policy. ;-)

Edited 2007-10-22 05:42

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: SELinux
by Soulbender on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 08:45 in reply to "RE[2]: SELinux"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Hmm..what's with the mod'ing down of almost every post I (and you) make anyway?
While it is somewhat flattering in a way that someone is "after you" it's magnitudes more times pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: SELinux
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Oct 2007 13:45 in reply to "RE[3]: SELinux"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Oh, that's cyclops. He's been at it for weeks now. I just ignore him. People come along later and mod them back up, so I don't worry about it. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2