• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    SELinux has long suffered from usability issues. Many commercial software packages require SELinux be disabled.

    Fix the docs, improve error messages, and create a GUI to improve usage.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Hate to be the type of person to comment this, but patches more than welcome

      for real though, even a small contribution to the docs helps a ton

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            Recently a supplier of ours announced that we could finally host their shitty java app on Linux instead of paying fucking Oracle for Solaris. So we were eager to hear the requirements. It was RHEL 8.4 or something, a version that was already EOL at the time.

            They can’t even update their distros apparently.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      afaik yes, at least the arch kernel has selinux enabled, but you need to install the user space tools from the AUR.

      • @ladyanita22
        link
        61 year ago

        But the profiles are pretty poor and basic AFAIK.

    • @Sh1nyM3t4l4ss
      link
      51 year ago

      I’m not aware of another one. Some other distros like Ubuntu and OpenSUSE ship AppArmor instead, which does similar things but isn’t considered quite as secure.

      I know plenty of other popular distros don’t ship any Mandatory Access Control system at all which seems like a very bad security practice to me. Same thing with Firewalls.

      • Baut [she/her] auf.
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        Nitpick: it’s not that AppArmor isn’t as secure, it’s just that SELinux is more powerful. The security always is up to the profiles.
        If you were to compare the policies for Fedora and e.g. Debian, I would assume Fedora has better ones though lol

        • @ladyanita22
          link
          31 year ago

          For sure. I believe Debian’s AppArmor integration is a little bit of an afterthought and there’s lots of patches missing as Canonical likes to keep many improvements downstream.

      • yeah, same. I am currently on NixOS, but looking to move away because it’s lacking support any MAC. I really love NixOS and it’s declarative approach to things, but i can’t live with such a large security hole in my home Network.

        As soon as i find a Distro that has MAC and allows for at least semi-declarative configuration, i am switching. But being able to declare an env/dconf setting in my config and sync it across all devices is just too powerful

        • @ladyanita22
          link
          31 year ago

          I suggest you check Silverblue + Ansible (or CoreOS/IoT for server stuff).

          • while i think that ansible is really cool, it’s not the same as Nix.

            correct me if i’m wrong, but afaik Ansible just modifies the current state of the System with a declarative configuration.

            Nix reverts your system back to install and then applies the configuration. The result is that in Nix if i remove something from the configuration.nix it is as if it never existed, whereas on Ansible it stays unless i manually run a task to uninstall it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    211 year ago

    SELinux will not magically make your system more secure. Desktop insecurity mostly boils down to poor user choices. E.g Granting vscode full access to your home folder and installing some random extension.

    Flatpaks and similar “container” tools are the obvious tools to use if you care about desktop security which the Linux ecosystem still generally deems as a lesser priority over being able to gain “rootful” permissions to carry out administrative tasks.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    Anyone even slightly interested in this, join!

    Seriously, I didn’t know jack about SELinux before joining the SIG and now I know a little less than jack about it (I tried confining my user and managed to be unable to login to my system)

    • iamak
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I’m interested. Can you tell me more about it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        You can just take a look at the links in the thread if you want to start testing, and can help report issues with your experiences in our Pagure repo, I still need to report mine to mnow if it’s a thing with GDM or if I just did something wrong

        • iamak
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Okay. Also how beneficial would this be for my résumé if I’m trying to get into cyber security field?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    A bit dated experience, but I wanted to make a ‘simple’ web app (nginx/fpm/psql) SELinux compatible in 2014.

    After reading the docs, it seemed I needed three layers of configuration just to make a policy. For two ports and two folders, that seemed way too complicated and absolutely not worth it.

  • raw
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    I love it and it really makes my Desktop more secure. Switching it off, has lead to installing hostile or insecure software within months. When it was introduced, i felt controlled by it, but actually i saw, what a mess came out of it when i disabled that. Today i feel protected, out of eperience, even if i know shirt about how it exacly works, but i saw stupid software harming my system when it was disabled.

  • danielfgom
    link
    English
    -51 year ago

    It was written by the NSA, that’s enough for me not to trust SELinux.

    • @sugartits
      link
      51 year ago

      It’s open source and lots of eyeballs have looked at it.

      It’s fine.

      • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Really good points from here:

        The “many eyes” theory is dead since the NSA backdoor in OpenSSL clearly showed how delusional that belief is. SELinux has never been audited by any trustworthy truly US-independent entity, making it nearly as untrustworthy as closed source. On top of that, there is always The Underhanded C Contest, proving that looking at the source is not enough. You need to be an expert who can detect underhanded backdoors too. – Evi1M4chine Feb 3, 2018 at 13:05

        I don’t think the NSA’s official mission is a good reason to believe it wouldn’t add backdoors. The agency considers American citizens to be adversaries, not beneficiaries of its operations. – augurar Oct 21, 2014 at 4:23

      • danielfgom
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Maybe but there must be a reason 99% of distributions use AppArmor instead