2 ms·

I agree that SELinux is much too complex for "regular people". However, the issue I see with this approach is that the default location for saving pretty much

I agree that SELinux is much too complex for "regular people". However, the issue I see with this approach is that the default location for saving pretty much everything on Windows is the Documents folder. So I think most people would just blindly agree to give access to this folder. Most malware comes from apps people wilfully install, so they would probably grant them access to the folders because they would want to use them. The approach I like best is what MacOS does, where you have to approve access to a specific folder. The drawback of the MacOS implementation is that I cannot define specific folders I want protected (say .ssh).

aj3 6y ago
I agree, at least an option to have more granularity would be a good thing. Maybe the upcoming changes to Android/iOS permission models will solve the problem of UI/UX and this will finally become fashionable. However, there is also a question of properly enforcing granular per-process restrictions (without breaking backwards compatibility). It's not a trivial task, there are plenty of corner cases: race conditions, symlinks, alternate data streams, process hollowing... I don't expect any implementation to be full-proof in the first decade.