Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Tue Aug 31 15:43:50 UTC 2010

On 08/31/2010 05:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 00:14:09 +0900,
>    Takehiko Abe<keke at>  wrote:
>> ;;; sorry other one goes straight to you
>>   >  Linus is not exactly famous for his ability to understand security
>>   >  concepts. I find the fact your argument is produced by google and
>>   >  cut/paste rather than technical material ... enlightening
>> Well, please educate me. All I hear from advocates is "more security"
>> without a concrete example. You mentioned the danger of emails get
>> stolen without SELinux. Please give me the scenario. So we can gauge
>> the risk.
> If you read email you need selinux. If you read email with a client that
> fires up plugins to read special content (e.g. html, pdfs, flash) then you
> really need selinux.
> If you use a web browser to view more than a short list of trusted sites,
> you need selinux.
> If you run network services accessible from outside the machine then you
> need selinux.
> If you run binaries from semitrusted groups (this includes most commercial
> software) then you need selinux.

You don't _need_ SELinux in any such cases.

SELinux is aiming at catching malfunctioning/misbehaving programs and 
_may_ prevent damage in use-cases such as those you list.

However, SELinux also causes mal-functions and prevents applications 
from operating properly. Semi-educated tweaking SELinux may even cause 
further damage up to rendering systems completely unusable.

To me this means: If the defaults work, use it. If it doesn't, switch it 
off, otherwise you might easily shoot yourself into the foot.


More information about the users mailing list