>> i read in slashdot that there is a question mark over SELinux because it came
>> from the NSA [4] but this is nonsense, as it is a means of securing processes
>> not network connections. i find it difficult to believe that a backdoor in a
>> locked cupboard in your house can somehow give access through the front door.
> This point you get wrong. SELinux implement the LSM API (in fact the LSM API
> was tailored to SELinux needs). It has hooks in nearly everything
> (file/directory access, process access and also sockets). One of the biggest
> concerns at the time of creation of the LSM API was rootkits hooking that
> functions. It's definitively a thread. I'm not saying that SELinux contains
> a backdoor (I for myself would have hidden it in the LSM part, not in SELinux
> because that would enable me to use it even if other LSMs are used). If you
> google for "underhanded C contest" you'll see that it's possible to hide
> malicious behaviour in plain sight. And if the kernel is compromised all other
> defenses mean nothing. (As I said, I don't want to spread fearbut that is
> something to consider imho).
Interesting, I didn't realise LSM provisioned hooks for SELinux -
thought it it was more modular (and less 'shoehorned') than that.
I need to go read about that some more now
