On 09/03/2015 12:29 PM, Tom Rivers wrote:
On 9/2/2015 17:25, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote
> TR> If that is the case, then my question is this: why is SELinux
> TR> blaming pyzor for something abrt is doing?
>
> Because it all happens in the context of the script. abrt basically
> hooks into the backtrace generation logic and runs some extra code.
> This doesn't happen in a separate process.
It's the whole "abrt basically hooks into the backtrace generation
logic" thing that I find particularly interesting. Your explanation
makes it sound as if a separate program is able to gain access to an
existing process and hide its true identity. I must be
misunderstanding the nuts and bolts of this because malware does the
exact same thing.
It makes sense to me that if a running process invokes an external
program then that request will be under the context of the running
process because it is what is making the request. However, a program
that has the ability to take on the guise of some other process and
make a request under a context that is not its own means it can hide.
I don't see how that is a good thing especially with respect to
programs like SELinux who must be able to clearly identify who is
doing what in order to perform its role effectively.
Tom
--
selinux mailing list
selinux(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux SELinux does will not
prevent a process with the proper rights from
taking over another policy. unconfined_t or kernel_t are both allowed
to do pretty much anything they want from an SELinux point of view. A
confined process would obviously be blocked from doing this.