I blame Redhat squarely for not mandating a document file detailing these systems, these contexts, these users. Redhat has co-opted and has become an IBM of co

I blame Redhat squarely for not mandating a document file detailing these systems, these contexts, these users. Redhat has co-opted and has become an IBM of consulting firm: use obscured notation of an error code as a corporate revenue flow. This is not a knock against SELinux nor against the inventor (NSA) thereof. SELinux is a great privilege boundary setter at an extreme granulated level. SELinux is superior over many other system audit approaches in all area but one: that one is ease of use. Another fault is that the Buy-ins of SELinux was placed upon the group of distro/package maintainers instead of upon the developer. Another aspect on the ease of use is that There are no auto generation of SELinux policy given one executable file. No tools have attempted to adequately scan the code or object files for such its needed audit policy file. But this mapping of code to resource is often a skimped step of software development. Unlike the development of apps for a GUI/WindowsManager environment, SELinux is NOT mandated by its own library to say “thou shall use all of me” or you don’t get go to heaven (or be seen on the computer).