Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Mar 2008 09:43 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris "OpenSolaris has launched a new project, Flexible Mandatory Access Control, to integrate the Flask/TE security scheme into their OS. This is the same underlying model implemented by SELinux, and follows other cross-platform Flask/TE integration projects such as SEDarwin and SEBSD. This is very exciting in terms of establishing compatible security across operating systems, particularly for Mandatory Access Control, which has traditionally been narrowly focused and generally incompatible. With FMAC, we're closer to seeing truly ubiquitous, cross-platform MAC security."
Thread beginning with comment 303484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Trusted Solaris?
by Redeeman on Wed 5th Mar 2008 12:03 UTC in reply to "Trusted Solaris?"
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

Well lets just say that theres a reason we dont all wave SELinux flags... ;)

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Trusted Solaris?
by Bitterman on Wed 5th Mar 2008 13:22 in reply to "RE: Trusted Solaris?"
Bitterman Member since:
2005-07-06

like what? any technical faults?
The only bad things about SElinux I hear are due to difficulty in rule building which although isn't meant for a joe desktop user the new building tools should be easy enough for a system admin to learn.
Mainly im trying to see what advantages this has over the current system.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Trusted Solaris?
by sbergman27 on Wed 5th Mar 2008 13:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Trusted Solaris?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, the 12% (on x86 for reads) to 147% (on SH series processors for writes, and no that's not a typo) cpu overhead of SELinux is rather significant. (And that impacts heat dissipation and battery life as well, of course.) Not sure how this new OpenSolaris implementation will compare. I think the overhead is supposed to be somewhat lower in Linux kernel 2.6.24. We'll see, I guess.

My understanding is that one pays a performance overhead even with selinux "disabled", unless he manually adds "selinux=0" to the kernel boot params AND the option for SELinux to honor that boot param has been compiled in.

Edited 2008-03-05 13:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6