meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 6 months |
| seen | 2 days ago | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
|
Jan 1 |
comment |
Security tradeoffs of pathname-based MAC (e.g., TOMOYO, grsecurity, AppArmor, …) @humanityANDpeace: Additional paper from TOMOYO author sourceforge.jp/projects/tomoyo/docs/lfj2008-bof.pdf about the role of "pathname based access control" in security. And this sourceforge.jp/projects/tomoyo/docs/lca2009-kumaneko.pdf with more discussions on it. |
|
Dec 31 |
answered | Mandatory Access Control Rulesets, how to deal with Python, Bash and other interpreters? |
|
Dec 27 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Dec 25 |
revised |
Security tradeoffs of pathname-based MAC (e.g., TOMOYO, grsecurity, AppArmor, …) Smack using file xattrs too, exactly like selinux. |
|
Dec 25 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Dec 25 |
answered | Security tradeoffs of pathname-based MAC (e.g., TOMOYO, grsecurity, AppArmor, …) |
|
Dec 25 |
suggested | suggested edit on Security tradeoffs of pathname-based MAC (e.g., TOMOYO, grsecurity, AppArmor, …) |
|
Dec 23 |
comment |
How to forbid one directory only in TOMOYO (2.5)? I need to restrict <kernel> do you understand that? I can not just add /\*{\*}\* and exclude /home/backup/\*{\*}\*, I should only add all dirs, excluding /home/\*{\*}\*, than in /home I should explicitly add every dirs of users, except /home/backup/\*{\*}\*. That is tons of rules already. And then every time I add user I should add rule for him. All that fun because TOMOYO is lacking exclusion rules. |
|
Dec 22 |
comment |
How to forbid one directory only in TOMOYO (2.5)? Problem is how to forbid other processes (besides backup) write access to backup data. All processes should have full access anywhere except /home/backup/\*{\*}\*. There is no problem allowing access to backup data for backup script, since in TOMOYO you granting accesss (and only granting). |
|
Dec 18 |
awarded | Tumbleweed |
|
Dec 12 |
answered | What is preventing the widespread common use of MAC-type systems? |
|
Dec 11 |
asked | How to forbid one directory only in TOMOYO (2.5)? |
|
Nov 9 |
comment |
Possible implementations of networked+encrypted filesystem @ tylerl @Æsahættr From the hint in ecryptfs FAQ and this ticket - ecryptfs will not work properly in networked scenario (over NFS for example) as requested in my question. Alas. |
|
Nov 9 |
comment |
Possible implementations of networked+encrypted filesystem @tylerl Thanks for the follow up about eCryptfs! That is interesting. |
|
Nov 6 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Nov 6 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Nov 6 |
comment |
Possible implementations of networked+encrypted filesystem I only fear that fuse stuff is slow and encfs is not enough crypto audited. But I may be wrong. |
|
Nov 6 |
revised |
Possible implementations of networked+encrypted filesystem added 4 characters in body |
|
Nov 6 |
accepted | Possible implementations of networked+encrypted filesystem |
|
Nov 6 |
awarded | Student |
