Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux
From: Neal Dias <NDias () SUNGLASSHUT COM>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:32:05 -0600
Scott D. Yelich" <scott () SCOTTYELICH COM wrote:
It frightens me to think that anyone would trust linux :-> but, alas, who knows. Maybe is enough sugar is poured on top, it just won't continue to smell so bad.
That's a pretty strong statement wouldn't you say? Sounds to me as if you wouldn't advocate linux in ANY circumstance. Am I reading and interpreting it wrong? To say that something stinks, and maybe adding features to it will improve the smell, sounds like you think it's "a bad thing" at its core. You seem to be back peddling here.
Did I ever mention out of the box security of Solaris, linux or windows? It seems to me that most systems need quite a bit of "fixing" if not a whole heck of a lot of configuring.
Actually you did: "...is not attempting to be a demo -- such as Pitbull (solaris?)?" Any OS, including Solaris, if not properly configured is not an OS I would consider as "secure", and that would include something like Pitbull. As far as I'm aware and correct me if I'm wrong, with proper configuration and documented auditing, Pitbull is a secure and trusted system, but not "out of the box". I wouldn't "trust" ANYTHING "out of the box."
Anyway, what closed OS are you referring to? Solaris is hardly closed. At least, it's a whole heck of a lot more open than mickeysoft, until/unless some jokers release the code they might have stolen from mickeysoft.
Since when? Ok, Solaris IS opening up, but that is a recent occurrence. It has traditionally been just as closed as any other OS, and I would include it with MS in that category. And for your original question:
Seems like this is a "demo" ... would anyone be able to compare this system to a system that is not attempting to be a demo...
Did you read through the website? They for the most part answer that question, the quotes below taken from the link provided in the original posts, and other pages on that site. www.nsa.gov/selinux/background.html "This work is not intended as a complete security solution for Linux..." "...it is simply an example of how mandatory access controls that can confine the actions of any process, including a superuser process, can be added into Linux." "There is still much work needed to develop a complete security solution." "we feel we have presented a good starting point to bring valuable security features to Linux. We are looking forward to building upon this work with the Linux community." "There is still significant work ahead to provide mandatory access controls for all kernel services and to provide a complete general purpose security policy configuration. " "It is expected that research in the above-identified areas of technology will continue." "Security-enhanced Linux is being released under the conditions of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The release includes documentation and source code for both the system and some system utilities that were modified to make use of the new features. Participation with comments, constructive criticism, and/or improvements is welcome." Seems to me from reading through the website that this is not a demo, and more than a proof of concept, it appears to be a continuing work with working source provided. You also ask:
Will it one day mutate into something that is trustable?
I guess that remains to be seen, however they seem to have made a substantial step in the right direction and provided us with a working basis.
Will they trust NSA code?
Well, they've provided the source for review, published it under the GPL and invited participation and improvement, so to a point it's no longer their code but the communities, so I guess the question is whether or not we can trust the communities code. To which I answer once again, nothing is "trusted" without proper auditing, evaluation and review, and even then, taken with a grain of salt.
In the eyes of the government and these agencies, it's the
good guys
(ie: them) vs the bad guys (ie: that'd be anyone who's not
them, and
perhaps even themselves). To me, that's a very scary
mentality. Unfortunately this is a mentality that they've come by the hard way. There are reasons that things are classified, with "need to know" restrictions. There are reasons the government boys are paranoid about such things. And they've learned by experience. It's too bad that we can't simply trust people, but we can't and they know this. Which is why so many things in the intelligence field are compartmentalized, with people only knowing what they need to know. Is this the best way to operate? It's not optimal, but when there are national security issues at stake, where mistakes can mean the loss of real people and assets, not just data, it's the way it's gotta be done. As Michael Warfield made references to, I'm sure an agency like the NSA LOVES the idea of having an OS that they have the source to. Think about how much trust is involved in an agency like that when they have to go to an outside source for their operating systems. In their shoes, using something like linux would make a LOT of sense. I for one am pleased to see that the work they are doing on a secure linux has been put out for review and improvement. Once again, I'm just reiterating Michael here, but they are contributing to the code base, making available their work to the community, whereby both the community and the NSA will benefit. Very forward thinking for an agency that traditionally hasn't been so. Please note that I do not, nor have I ever, worked for any government agency, therefore my comments above concerning mentality and methods of operation should be construed strictly as personal opinion, I am not speaking from experience, only observation. Neal Dias UNIX Systems Administrator Sunglass Hut International, MIS Dept. office: (305) 648-6479 mobile: (786) 368-5742 wk. email: NDias () sunglasshut com pvt. email: emperor.1 () netzero net ******************************************************************************* Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. -Nietzsche Any opinions expressed above or below are entirely my own and may not reflect those of my employers. The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the receipt and use of the individual(s) or entity(s) named above. If the reader of this email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for its delivery to the intended and or addressed recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited except at the express consent of its author.
Current thread:
- The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Ralf-Philipp Weinmann (Dec 21)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Scott D. Yelich (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Michael H. Warfield (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Scott D. Yelich (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Michael H. Warfield (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Michael H. Warfield (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux M Schubert (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Scott D. Yelich (Dec 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Neal Dias (Dec 22)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Neal Dias (Dec 25)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Dom De Vitto (Dec 26)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Neal Dias (Dec 27)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Timothy J. Miller (Dec 28)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Scott D. Yelich (Dec 29)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux M.Schubert (Dec 29)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux Neal Dias (Dec 29)
- Re: The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux geoffrey (Dec 29)