Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: thegeezer <thegeezer@×××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security.
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:30:56
Message-Id: 522DE997.9000706@thegeezer.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security. by Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
1 >> i read in slashdot that there is a question mark over SELinux because it came
2 >> from the NSA [4] but this is nonsense, as it is a means of securing processes
3 >> not network connections. i find it difficult to believe that a backdoor in a
4 >> locked cupboard in your house can somehow give access through the front door.
5 > This point you get wrong. SELinux implement the LSM API (in fact the LSM API
6 > was tailored to SELinux needs). It has hooks in nearly everything
7 > (file/directory access, process access and also sockets). One of the biggest
8 > concerns at the time of creation of the LSM API was rootkits hooking that
9 > functions. It's definitively a thread. I'm not saying that SELinux contains
10 > a backdoor (I for myself would have hidden it in the LSM part, not in SELinux
11 > because that would enable me to use it even if other LSMs are used). If you
12 > google for "underhanded C contest" you'll see that it's possible to hide
13 > malicious behaviour in plain sight. And if the kernel is compromised all other
14 > defenses mean nothing. (As I said, I don't want to spread fearbut that is
15 > something to consider imho).
16 Interesting, I didn't realise LSM provisioned hooks for SELinux -
17 thought it it was more modular (and less 'shoehorned') than that.
18 I need to go read about that some more now

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security. Hinnerk van Bruinehsen <h.v.bruinehsen@×××××××××.de>