[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: securelevel=3

Tobias Weingartner <weingart@wolfram.com> writes:

> On Thursday, May 14, stanislav shalunov wrote:
> > 
> > It might be useful to have some sort of securemask on per process
> > basis (with a special system call that can _set_ some bits of
> > it--there should be no way of clearing a bit, and it should be
> > inherited by children).
> It would be nice to see this implemented.  I'm not sure, but there is a
> "class" field in master.passwd, which could be used to point to a database
> of sorts, which could be used by login,xdm,etc for initializing this
> per-process field. Of course, then some substantial changes to the kernel...

I was looking a few weeks ago at something like this implemented for Linux.
There is a standard (posix.6) that specifies how this kind of fine-grained
control should look like. But in that case it applies more to super-user
privilegies, but it could easily be extended to cover normal users.


I'm still not conviced that you can improve security by making the control
mechanism more complicated.

Standards are good. Everybody should have one.