3 ms·
All I said is that they may have complex goals, while pointing out selinux was also contributed primarily by them. I take it that means your position is that th
by kbenson 7y ago
All I said is that they may have complex goals, while pointing out selinux was also contributed primarily by them. I take it that means your position is that they only contribute code for the purpose of exploiting people for national security, and selinux is also suspect?
- mort96 7y agoI mean, being primarily contributed by the NSA is a great reason to not use SELinux, especially if you're outside of the US. AppArmor exists and does a lot of the same job, so why not use the safer option?
- closeparen 7y agoThey're a spy agency, they're presumably capable of not signing their work.
- ENOTTY 7y agoThe chief problem with AppArmor is that its primary mechanism of identifying objects in the system (to which relevant policy rules are applied) relies on paths. In Linux, paths are not usable as strong identifiers because Linux provides a variety of ways to alias those objects. Additionally, some objects that deserve scrutiny from a mandatory access control perspective don't map cleanly to paths.