On 6/18/07, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:18:40PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 6/18/07, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
I've never said there are _no_ cases for SELinux. I was questioning it as a general rule for all machines.
Several of the problems were machines that were not connected to the internet or were deep behind firewalls. The problems were that all it takes is one user who doesnt think well to make all those firewalls/issues useless. E.G the person who coming in from work finds a nice shiney USB fob and plugs it into a work computer to see who it belonged to so they could return it. The guy who downloads an
[ etc ]
This is why I mentioned "risk profile" in another message. You evaluate the perceived risk, the likely-hood of the event happening, the cost of the event, the "cost" of a potential solution and perform an analysis.
So one might rank the items this: external facing servers: high risk! Automated attacks possible Desktop work stations: moderate. User stupidity highest attack vector General compute server: low risk. Only "trained" staff have access.
I was really grumpy yesterday.. so I just wanted to say that I believe that in most cases where you are in a low risk.. you might be better off with selinux in permissive mode versus off. Permissive at least will give you a finger print of what might have gone wrong when the PFY plugged in that nice shiney USB fob he found next to his car at lunch.