Donate

Categories

Advert

XHTML

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Is SE Linux Unixish?

In a comment on my AppArmor is dead post [1] someone complained that SE Linux is not “Unixish“.

The security model in Unix is almost exclusively Discretionary Access Control (DAC) [2]. This means that any process that owns a resource can grant access to the resource to other processes without restriction. For example a user can run “chmod 777 ~” and grant every other user on the system the ability to access their files (and take over their account by modifying ~/.login and similar files). I say that it’s almost exclusively DAC because there are some things that a user can not give away, for example they can not permit a program running under a different non-root UID to ptrace their processes. But for file and directory access it’s entirely discretionary.

SE Linux is based around the concept of Mandatory Access Control (MAC) [3]. This means that the system security policy (as defined by the people who developed the distribution and the local sysadmin) can not be overridden by the user. When a daemon is prevented from accessing files in a user’s home directory by the SE Linux policy and the user is not running in the unconfined_t domain there is no possibility of them granting access.

SE Linux has separate measures for protecting integrity and confidentiality. An option is to use MultiLevel Security (MLS) [4], but a more user-friendly option is MCS (Multi-Category Security).

The design of SE Linux is based on the concept of having as much of the security policy as possible being loaded at boot time. The design of the Unix permissions model was based on the concept of using the minimal amount of memory at a time when 1M of RAM was a big machine. An access control policy is comprised of two parts, file labels (which is UID, GID, permissions, and maybe ACLs for Unix access controls and a “security context” for SE Linux) and a policy which determines how those file labels are used. The policy in the Unix system is compiled into the kernel and is essentially impossible to change. The SE Linux policy is loaded at boot time, and the most extreme changes to the policy will at most require a reboot.

The policy language used for SE Linux is based on the concept of deny by default (everything that is not specifically permitted is denied) and access controls apply to all operations. The Unix access control is mostly permissive and many operations (such as seeing more privileged processes in the output of “ps”) can not be denied on a standard Unix system.

So it seems that in many ways SE Linux is not “Unixish”, and it seems to me that any system which makes a Unix system reasonably secure could also be considered to be “not Unixish”. Unix just wasn’t designed for security, not that it is bad by the standards of modern server and desktop OSs.

Of course many of the compromises in the design of Unix (such as having all login sessions recorded in a single /var/run/utmp file and having all user accounts stored in a single /etc/passwd file) impact SE Linux systems. But some of them can be worked around, and others will be fixed eventually.

2 comments to Is SE Linux Unixish?

  • Tom

    :)

    OK, so I was right.
    A lot of people will argue that Linux should run (securely) on machines with 4 or 8mb of RAM(embedded devices, cell phones etc.).
    So not only is SELinux not Unixish, it also is not Linuxish.
    And you still haven’t commented on Smack. (http://schaufler-ca.com/) Which is smaller, simpler and mainline.

  • Morris

    RSBAC is “unixish” as it is modular, smaller and simple, and allows for new modules to be easily hooked into and written for it. One of the unix ideals is that a program is small and does only what it needs to do. RSBAC fits this far more than SELinux does.