Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)
- Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 07:28:08 +0000
- From: "Dr. Bas Wijnen" <wijnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 06:28:20PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> intrigeri wrote...
> > tl;dr: I hereby propose we enable AppArmor by default in testing/sid,
> > and decide one year later if we want to keep it this way in the
> > Buster release.
> [...] while adding another security layer is certainly something to
> consider, I'm as well interested in whether this is feasible for a
> generic-purpose distribution like Debian.
Enabling it by default doesn't mean it can't be switched off, right? I think
it makes a lot of sense to enable something like this by default, and in fact I
can't think of a situation where you would not want it, but indeed users should
be able to set their system up without it if they so wish.
> The worst thing that could happen was people will have to do the counterpart
> of chmod 777. Then it was a bad idea, but we (as in Debian) have
> substantiation for such a claim.
Yes, we should certainly avoid that; if it looks like that is happening, we
should abort the operation. But from the well written plan, it sounds to me
like this is unlikely to be the case.
So just to be clear: Yes, please enable AppArmor by default.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----