-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 06:28:20PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > intrigeri wrote... > > > tl;dr: I hereby propose we enable AppArmor by default in testing/sid, > > and decide one year later if we want to keep it this way in the > > Buster release. > > [...] while adding another security layer is certainly something to > consider, I'm as well interested in whether this is feasible for a > generic-purpose distribution like Debian.
Enabling it by default doesn't mean it can't be switched off, right? I think it makes a lot of sense to enable something like this by default, and in fact I can't think of a situation where you would not want it, but indeed users should be able to set their system up without it if they so wish. > The worst thing that could happen was people will have to do the counterpart > of chmod 777. Then it was a bad idea, but we (as in Debian) have > substantiation for such a claim. Yes, we should certainly avoid that; if it looks like that is happening, we should abort the operation. But from the well written plan, it sounds to me like this is unlikely to be the case. So just to be clear: Yes, please enable AppArmor by default. Thanks, Bas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZhsUHAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6/WoP/3NHlHKzWd/DPjBV41Tq6WHT JwRXT7zqbsLa1UlxeRTBhbH82EAFYpn59s7d882/JQ+0MBvp0bcn9t85i2IYBS7K LruV569kM0jYYGk4MY9BLmo5WlYlmrE7+B/8wc86oLsvi676SJ33dzQUNczt/fJF SrXUWix2phMjLtHp9v6+OSdxCDnkMLGQX7VYuv7Zz1n0XenbXeQWBVK/8kJdsuPx +WsojZ5u72n6IhpRQv4tiP0P28G4Bdi1JN4AwQNSqd44bV1bFl+2Em1DJquly/LO hCVty9BJVuO/s0KdWeXC7raa4vsaiswKohA0GYkDqT8vBrTZ2chBbJNkQrByR7BF iXp3o/irlpZIp7A7EUBLPfKKTAVk40gLrw/WYraGJ9zH9y/eNly6y7BcjNbzikMe euOH+GPr6zvLng+KHC8w0qk3/m8FEWkamAmwPDqZVxuubvid00ECRv4WU9X4bvaf coLYOumS+T0qmlHrLgUlTq8RtRHg6Nqok3DULQpofTWvtCrNDcWXI21YjDp+kNmW JzlQ3Ja7baZFDHygmWAvG1fXWCIC3Bl3sLxqy9h5+1m0W8PxqPii/BIZjCSbVMu+ P3VRmryhxdLLL/nzt2zX09VtAJwNAKL42UYfh3nlJN5/4LnT2JpCILvktTtNJoym V8yP+AuLbIo+TcDrqPLn =fVTR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
