The MLS Selinux policy go beyond a "everything a file" acl and offer
much more protection, at the expense di some
complexity
http://securityblog.org/brindle/2007/05/28/secure-networking-with-selinux...
Also james morris had post some useful docu on the subject in his blog.
Regards
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Callum Lerwick wrote:
>
>
> Why do we need a firewall when you can easily prevent services from
> being accessed...just stop the service! Don't bind to the port, and
> it won't be possible to connect to it.
>
>
> Yes, the correct thing to do for local security is use something like
> selinux to prevent things from binding to interfaces/ports they shouldn't be
> binding to in the first place.
>
But what you usually want to control are the ranges of source/destination
addresses that are permitted.
Using iptables for this is a completely unsustainable hack. iptables
> firewalling is for machines that route packets to other machines.
>
Unsustainable? But it is what you need to do, not kill functionality
completely.
Unfortunately for some reason network devices are exempt from the
> "everything is a file" architecture thus don't recieve the benefit of
the
> pre-existing filesystem access control architecture.
>
Yes, this seems like a bizarre design decision in Linux but realistically,
everything needs network access to be useful at all these days and what you
need to control is where on the network something can/can't connect.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list