Re: [gentoo-hardened] SELinux policy rules principles?

[klondike <franxisco1988@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2201 bytes --]

El 21/01/11 22:55, Sven Vermeulen escribió:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:06:47AM -0600, Chris Richards wrote:
>> On 01/16/2011 09:09 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>>> When writing security policies, it is important to first have a vision on
>>> how the security policies should be made. Of course, final vision should be
>>> with a systems' security administrator, but a distribution should give a
>>> first start for this.
> [... What to allow ...]
>> My general feeling is that the system should operate FROM THE USER 
>> PERSPECTIVE the way it always does, i.e. the existence of SELinux should 
>> be relatively transparent to the user and/or administrator, at least to 
>> the extent that is practical.  There may be some things that you simply 
>> can't avoid changing, but they should generally be few and far between.
> [... What to hide ...]
>> My general feeling here is that, again where practical, we should avoid 
>> cluttering the logs.  Logs that are cluttered with noise don't get 
>> properly evaluated for the truly exceptional conditions that the 
>> administrator needs to be concerned about.  Obviously, there are tools 
>> that can help with this, but those tools should be used for the purpose 
>> of helping the administrator organize the information, not prune the 
>> logs of stuff to ignore.  If there's stuff that is going to be routinely 
>> ignored because it is essentially useless chatter, then it shouldn't be 
>> there to start with.
> Well, I've taken the liberty of writing down a sort-of policy document in
> which we can include our development principles and methods. The idea is
> that both existing and new developers then know how to "include" their 
> suggested changes and how to configure/design the added SELinux policy
> rules.
>
> The document: http://goo.gl/2U0Zr
>
> I've included a few of the items we discussed already, but also added
> two others ones (see the "No Role-Specific Domains" and "Only Reference
> Policy Suggested Roles" rules).
>
> It's a *discussion* document, I'm really open to (many) suggestions (and
> enhancements ;-
Recovering the spirit from the good old times huh? That's good to hear ^_^


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]