| 1 |
On Friday 18 July 2003 07:54, Brandon Hale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I received a similar |
| 4 |
> argument concerning SE Linux, whose superior security model negates the |
| 5 |
> usefulness of chroot'ing a service. However, SE Linux is currently |
| 6 |
> difficult to implement effectively and not a feasible choice for the |
| 7 |
> average sysadmin. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I have recently adopted systrace as a "better chroot". I find it is easier to |
| 10 |
set up a new service under systrace than both chroot and selinux. Unlike |
| 11 |
chroot, it is easy to disable systrace briefly if you suspect the security |
| 12 |
hardening may be causing a problem. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Another advantage is that systrace is available to non-root users. That makes |
| 15 |
it easier to prototype policies. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives