[SGVLUG] Reverse Engineering / Analyzing the SELinux Kernel Source Code?

[Dustin Laurence]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:43:48PM -0700, Sean O'Donnell wrote:

> After reading the (2.6.10 kernel) analysis which describes various flaws 
> in the linux random number generator, it made me wonder if an actual 
> analysis had been performed on the SELinux kernel.
> 
> http://www.pinkas.net/PAPERS/gpr06.pdf

Does SELinux replace the RNG?  What kind of analysis?  At what level of
detail?  Perhaps I did not understand the question, but it doesn't take
very long before it gets just silly--you are more vulnerable to many
other things.  It's like the French continually reinforcing the Maginot
line without considering the possibility of a flanking attack through
the Ardennes.  No one link makes you more secure.

> The possibility of tainted binaries are one reason why I prefer 
> compiling (most, especially tcp/udp/ip server applications) from source.

Fine, though I think that's paranoid (I trust a Debian or
Slackware-shipped binary more than I trust yours :-) ).  And do you
understand the implications of the "trusting trust" paper?  If you are
worried about

> ...*highly 
> unlikely, but 100% possible*

attacks, then you need to be worried about verifying your compiler.
Building it from verified source does *not* verify the binary--that is,
in fact, the major point of Ken Thompson's paper.

Dustin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20060523/5b4d70c9/attachment-0001.bin