1 |
El 21/01/11 22:55, Sven Vermeulen escribió: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:06:47AM -0600, Chris Richards wrote: |
3 |
>> On 01/16/2011 09:09 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
4 |
>>> When writing security policies, it is important to first have a vision on |
5 |
>>> how the security policies should be made. Of course, final vision should be |
6 |
>>> with a systems' security administrator, but a distribution should give a |
7 |
>>> first start for this. |
8 |
> [... What to allow ...] |
9 |
>> My general feeling is that the system should operate FROM THE USER |
10 |
>> PERSPECTIVE the way it always does, i.e. the existence of SELinux should |
11 |
>> be relatively transparent to the user and/or administrator, at least to |
12 |
>> the extent that is practical. There may be some things that you simply |
13 |
>> can't avoid changing, but they should generally be few and far between. |
14 |
> [... What to hide ...] |
15 |
>> My general feeling here is that, again where practical, we should avoid |
16 |
>> cluttering the logs. Logs that are cluttered with noise don't get |
17 |
>> properly evaluated for the truly exceptional conditions that the |
18 |
>> administrator needs to be concerned about. Obviously, there are tools |
19 |
>> that can help with this, but those tools should be used for the purpose |
20 |
>> of helping the administrator organize the information, not prune the |
21 |
>> logs of stuff to ignore. If there's stuff that is going to be routinely |
22 |
>> ignored because it is essentially useless chatter, then it shouldn't be |
23 |
>> there to start with. |
24 |
> Well, I've taken the liberty of writing down a sort-of policy document in |
25 |
> which we can include our development principles and methods. The idea is |
26 |
> that both existing and new developers then know how to "include" their |
27 |
> suggested changes and how to configure/design the added SELinux policy |
28 |
> rules. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> The document: http://goo.gl/2U0Zr |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I've included a few of the items we discussed already, but also added |
33 |
> two others ones (see the "No Role-Specific Domains" and "Only Reference |
34 |
> Policy Suggested Roles" rules). |
35 |
> |
36 |
> It's a *discussion* document, I'm really open to (many) suggestions (and |
37 |
> enhancements ;- |
38 |
Recovering the spirit from the good old times huh? That's good to hear ^_^ |