Bug#750106: AppArmor ineffective for LXC

2018-01-29 Thread intrigeri
Control: done -1 2.11.1-4 intrigeri: > I believe the blockers have been resolved in current testing/sid: the > kernel now has mount mediation support and the pinned feature set in > the apparmor package enables it. I see no bug with "apparmor" in its > title on the src:lxc BTS page and its

Bug#750106: AppArmor ineffective for LXC

2018-01-07 Thread intrigeri
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hi, I believe the blockers have been resolved in current testing/sid: the kernel now has mount mediation support and the pinned feature set in the apparmor package enables it. I see no bug with "apparmor" in its title on the src:lxc BTS page and its debian/changelog

Bug#750106: AppArmor

2014-06-05 Thread intrigeri
Hi, (I noticed this parser failure on the LXC profiles thanks to the red line in `systemctl list-units' output here. It's unclear to me which bug report is actually the one about the shipped profiles being buggy. Sorry if that's not the right one.) John Goerzen wrote (02 Jun 2014 02:49:40 GMT) :

Bug#750106: AppArmor

2014-06-01 Thread John Goerzen
reopen 750107 thanks Daniel, There are two different bugs here. 1) Installing lxc renders AppArmor unusable on the entire system because the LXC profiles have syntax errors. How to reproduce: apt-get install apparmor reboot with security=apparmor apparmor=1 on kernel command line apt-get

Bug#750106: AppArmor info

2014-06-01 Thread John Goerzen
Daniel et al, Here are some links that describe AppArmor and why it's important to LXC: https://www.stgraber.org/2014/01/01/lxc-1-0-security-features/ http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413 is an exploit that is usable to compromise the host's root on any LXC container that doesn't use app armor or

Bug#750106: AppArmor info

2014-06-01 Thread Daniel Baumann
On 06/01/2014 10:27 PM, John Goerzen wrote: Here are some links that describe AppArmor and why it's important to LXC: i'm aware that lxc can use apparmor, but as said previously, it is not required to make a container secure. http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413 is an exploit that is usable to

Bug#750106: AppArmor

2014-06-01 Thread Daniel Baumann
On 06/01/2014 10:47 PM, John Goerzen wrote: 1) Installing lxc renders AppArmor unusable on the entire system because the LXC profiles have syntax errors. i take it you're using apparmor and are familiar with it. would you be so kind in preparing a patch to apply in lxc to make the missing

Bug#750106: AppArmor info

2014-06-01 Thread John Goerzen
On 06/01/2014 04:43 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote: On 06/01/2014 10:27 PM, John Goerzen wrote: Here are some links that describe AppArmor and why it's important to LXC: i'm aware that lxc can use apparmor, but as said previously, it is not required to make a container secure. Everything I have

Bug#750106: AppArmor info

2014-06-01 Thread Daniel Baumann
On 06/02/2014 12:06 AM, John Goerzen wrote: Everything I have read says one must use either AppArmor or user namespaces to make it secure. or, like i said, you can r/o mount certain pseudo-fs and drop a bunch of capabilities, like lxc-debconfig in lxc-stuff does by default (and lxc-debian in

Bug#750106: AppArmor

2014-06-01 Thread John Goerzen
On 06/01/2014 04:51 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote: On 06/01/2014 10:47 PM, John Goerzen wrote: 1) Installing lxc renders AppArmor unusable on the entire system because the LXC profiles have syntax errors. i take it you're using apparmor and are familiar with it. would you be so kind in preparing

Bug#750106: AppArmor info

2014-06-01 Thread John Goerzen
On 06/01/2014 05:13 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote: On 06/02/2014 12:06 AM, John Goerzen wrote: Everything I have read says one must use either AppArmor or user namespaces to make it secure. or, like i said, you can r/o mount certain pseudo-fs and drop a bunch of capabilities, like lxc-debconfig