Re: file(1) now with seccomp support enabled

2019-07-27 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 2019-07-27 04:55, Christoph Biedl wrote: Eventually fakeroot-tcp, wishes to open sockets, something I certainly would not want to whitelist. In AppArmor case, "non-standard" use cases can be dealt with by editing `/etc/apparmor.d/local/usr.bin.foo`, adding any necessary rules (like allowing

Re: file(1) now with seccomp support enabled

2019-07-26 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 2019-07-26 18:59, Christoph Biedl wrote: tl;dr: The file program in unstable is now built with seccomp support enabled, expect breakage in some rather uncommon use cases. Interesting, what are these uncommon use cases? Maybe we could confine it with AppArmor instead, since we have it enabled

Re: Debian packaging, dependency management and the C++ standards meeting

2018-10-15 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 2018-10-03 22:43, Jussi Pakkanen wrote: Well, there are about three meetings per year, and I doubt the next meeting will be some soft of "definitive" (or will it?) It is the last meeting where things can be added to C++20 so I would call that definitive. The tooling group that will try t

Re: Debian packaging, dependency management and the C++ standards meeting

2018-10-03 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 10/3/18 7:56 PM, Jussi Pakkanen wrote: An alternative, or parallel, approach could be to write a paper outlining the issues and submitting it to the standard body. It seems that papers are The communication channel for C++ ISO, it might be useful to write paper, receive feedback, and improv

What packages are "responsible" for /tmp/xauth-1000* ?

2018-08-08 Thread Vincas Dargis
Hi Debian Developers, While debugging some AppArmor-related stuff I've discovered that some application uses `/tmp/xauth-1000-_0` files instead of `~/.Xauthority`, and started discussion on upstream AppArmor mailing list [0] on how to deal with such cases. Simon McVittie enlightened me [1] (t

Re: recommends for apparmor in newest linux-image-4.13

2017-12-06 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 2017-12-06 12:24, Laurent Bigonville wrote: I feel that having Apparmor running and not doing anything will give people a false sense of security, on my test machine almost nothing was confined Yeah, we really need much more working profiles ready to be shipped... Thoguh I believe our AppAr

Re: recommends for apparmor in newest linux-image-4.13

2017-11-29 Thread Vincas Dargis
On 2017-11-29 09:25, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:22:50PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: My personal pet "I don't have time" project I'd love to see is extending systemd units for as many services in Debian as possible to include namespace restrictions and seccomp filter rules,