Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 11:09 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Bad name in the installed file. It used to be disable_games. We might
>>>want to add a
>>>boolean back in to prevent users from running games at all. But we
>>>would need to remove
>>>exec_type from the attribute.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Prevent users from running games? Why do we want to do that?
>>What's wrong with the current approach to doing this...namely..don't
>>install any games, and then the users won't be running them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I am thinking of the situation where you might want to users in a
>certain role allowed to play games and others not, on a shared
>machine. A more interesting example would be to disallow sysadm from
>running games, mozilla ...
>
>Basically a user accidently runs mozilla or a game while newroled to
>sysadm. Might be nice to have that error out.
>Ordinarily a transition happens but still It would be nice to prevent this.
>
>
I actually see SElinux as suited for the *opposite* phenomenon.
Particularly, while on a legacy machine running mozilla and company as
root would not be a very bright idea, on a SElinux-constrained machine
it shouldn't be so bad (it's confined, how much damage can it do?).
Well actually the more I think about this, this is the job of roles.
But the problem here is
not disable-trans as no exec. I think we need to maybe stop marking
certain defined
domains as exec_type. To prevent all users from being able to execute
the application
without a transition.
I think lots of users have had the experience of accidentally running
something as root when
they did not want too. Even in your example I disable-trans for games
and then accidentally
run some game as sysadm, bad things can happen.
Dan
--