Re: [Apparmor-dev] Re: AppArmor Security Goal

2007-11-15 Thread Peter Dolding
> > What is left unspecified here is 'how' a child 'with its own profile' is > > confined here. Are it is confined to just its own profile, it may that > > the "complicit process" communication may need to be wider specified to > > include this. Sorry have to bring this up. cgroups why not? Assi

Re: [Apparmor-dev] Re: AppArmor Security Goal

2007-11-13 Thread Crispin Cowan
Re-sent with proper addressing ... Rob Meijer wrote: >> The >> system is "defended" in that the worst the attacker can do to corrupt >> the system is limited to the transitive closure of what the confined >> processes are allowed to access. >> > The damage the atacker can do would be defined

Re: [Apparmor-dev] Re: AppArmor Security Goal

2007-11-13 Thread Crispin Cowan
Rob Meijer wrote: >> The >> system is "defended" in that the worst the attacker can do to corrupt >> the system is limited to the transitive closure of what the confined >> processes are allowed to access. >> > The damage the atacker can do would be defined by the authority not the > permissio