Re: Slides

On 4 August 2013 21:53, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:

> I also get a 404, and I'd like to look at the slides.
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Guido Witmond <guido-EBfTt96odT/[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the other 49, I found your talk useful. You gave me a
>>  good overview of what's wrong with AppArmor and where and how to use
>> MinorFS....
>
>
> Since I can't see the slides, I can't comment, but I think it's important
> to recognize that AppArrmor isn't intended as any sort of "silver bullet".
>
> AppArmor should probably be seen as a reaction to SELinux, which is far
> too complicated to be useful in practice. I actually *do* know how
> SELinux works, and I've build SELinux profiles (or whatever the hell they
> are called), and it's *awful*. For most people, you can forget it. That's
> why most people run with SELinux disabled on systems that support it.
>

I thought AppArmor was built in parallel to SELinux, so not really a
reaction?


> AppArmor, whatever its flaws, has a policy specification language that
> administrators can actually get their heads around, and is universally
> viewed as easier to administer. It's also generally recognized as less
> powerful than SELinux, mainly because SELinux is operates at finer
> granularity. I've never seen anybody give a compelling use case where that
> finer granularity was pragmatically useful.
>
> Crispin Cowan (AppArmor's architect) is not the world's most intrepid
> theoretical computer security guy, and he doesn't claim to be. In my
> opinion, he's far and away one of the best at choosing and realizing an
> effective balance point between hypothetically achievable security and
> real-world usability. Though the folks on this list are more aware than
> most, I think that this kind of "real world realization" skill tends to be
> woefully underappreciated by computer scientists at large.
>
> When you go out and search the web, you find that the people debating
> AppArmor and SELinux invariably compare and contrast the *hypothetical* capabilities
> of these systems rather than the capabilities that are deployable by
> real-world users. Having worked with both, My opinion is that AppArmor
> wins, because the likelihood that it is actually *used* - and even used
> effectively, within its limits - is far higher than SELinux. And for a more
> subtle reason as well. AppArmor can be *explained* to a normal mortal
> where SELinux can't be. And if you know what something *does*, then of
> course it's possible to have a handle on what it *doesn't* do - which is
> very important if you're in the business of playing defender.
>
> Can it be improved? Certainly. And I look forward to seeing Rob's
> suggestions about that.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that we always need to keep our sights
> on usability when we talk about security solutions. I imagine Rob has
> likely done that, and I look forward to a chance to see his slides.
>
>
> shap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>
>

_______________________________________________
cap-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk