| 1 |
> It is an extra security measure for defense in depth. |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It allows easy use and a better default widely understood and |
| 4 |
> blanket setting that almost any user can understand and switch off and |
| 5 |
> so is more likely (not very) to be applied across the board. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It gives admins extra control. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
A inefficient and useless layer if not complemented with extra measures. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Shall we get rid of file permissions because we have RBAC. We could |
| 13 |
> but I can't see that happening and for good reason. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
file permissions are discrectional, rbac mostly mandatory, don't try |
| 16 |
to compare them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I do and I disagree here though we are both right really as has been |
| 20 |
> the case for most of this discussion. RBAC can restrict root and |
| 21 |
> root has the potential to make Direct attacks on the kernel via the |
| 22 |
> memory, accessible devices and perhaps even RBAC itself. Things do |
| 23 |
> require priviledges and RBAC reduces those granted and is good but if |
| 24 |
> RBAC removed root the kernel wouldn't be able to turn on and off RBAC |
| 25 |
> and the boot phase wouldn't be vulnerable. I already realised that RBACs |
| 26 |
> were path and Role based, some inode based and probably many other |
| 27 |
> flavours. I looked over that pdf but I do have far better ones that |
| 28 |
> don't belittle systrace like you do. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It does not restrict root, it erase it. The concept of root doesn't |
| 31 |
exists anymore. |
| 32 |
Give me an example of direct attack via memory as you say, accessible |
| 33 |
devices and anything else said you before. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Raw access is fully controlled and forbidden to root, raw access to |
| 36 |
ttys and block devices too, controlled the mount of devices etc etc |
| 37 |
etc |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
You don't know what rbac is so don't speak about it because you can't |
| 40 |
understand it |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Lets make this constructive. Maybe you can tell me which RBAC you use |
| 45 |
> and why you chose it. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Thanks |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Kc |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
I use rsbac as framework, with modules RC, ACL, exclusive UM, RES, |
| 52 |
JAIL, MAC, PAX, AUTH and CAP running. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Root has not capabilities, not CAP_SYS_RAWIO, no DAC_OVERRIDE, not |
| 55 |
SYS_MODULES etc etc he can only execute binaries in /sbin and /bin, |
| 56 |
map /lib libraries and nothing else, halt has its own role and type, |
| 57 |
so root even can't switch down the machine for example. Master role of |
| 58 |
sshd even has more privileges than root itself. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
I use rsbac because it reachs to B1 security level, level that openbsd |
| 61 |
will never reach, it supports even secure_delete, and has some B2 |
| 62 |
charateristics as device labels are. |
Archives