Empowering End Users to Confine Their Own Applications: The Results of a Usability Study Comparing SELinux, AppArmor, and FBAC-LSM

Z. Schreuders, T. McGill, Christian N. Payne
{"title":"Empowering End Users to Confine Their Own Applications: The Results of a Usability Study Comparing SELinux, AppArmor, and FBAC-LSM","authors":"Z. Schreuders, T. McGill, Christian N. Payne","doi":"10.1145/2019599.2019604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Protecting end users from security threats is an extremely difficult, but increasingly critical, problem. Traditional security models that focused on separating users from each other have proven ineffective in an environment of widespread software vulnerabilities and rampant malware. However, alternative approaches that provide more finely grained security generally require greater expertise than typical end users can reasonably be expected to have, and consequently have had limited success.\n The functionality-based application confinement (FBAC) model is designed to allow end users with limited expertise to assign applications hierarchical and parameterised policy abstractions based upon the functionalities each program is intended to perform. To validate the feasibility of this approach and assess the usability of existing mechanisms, a usability study was conducted comparing an implementation of the FBAC model with the widely used Linux-based SELinux and AppArmor security schemes. The results showed that the functionality-based mechanism enabled end users to effectively control the privileges of their applications with far greater success than widely used alternatives. In particular, policies created using FBAC were more likely to be enforced and exhibited significantly lower risk exposure, while not interfering with the ability of the application to perform its intended task. In addition to the success of the functionality-based approach, the usability study also highlighted a number of limitations and problems with existing mechanisms. These results indicate that a functionality-based approach has significant potential in terms of enabling end users with limited expertise to defend themselves against insecure and malicious software.","PeriodicalId":50912,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Information and System Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Information and System Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2019599.2019604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

Protecting end users from security threats is an extremely difficult, but increasingly critical, problem. Traditional security models that focused on separating users from each other have proven ineffective in an environment of widespread software vulnerabilities and rampant malware. However, alternative approaches that provide more finely grained security generally require greater expertise than typical end users can reasonably be expected to have, and consequently have had limited success. The functionality-based application confinement (FBAC) model is designed to allow end users with limited expertise to assign applications hierarchical and parameterised policy abstractions based upon the functionalities each program is intended to perform. To validate the feasibility of this approach and assess the usability of existing mechanisms, a usability study was conducted comparing an implementation of the FBAC model with the widely used Linux-based SELinux and AppArmor security schemes. The results showed that the functionality-based mechanism enabled end users to effectively control the privileges of their applications with far greater success than widely used alternatives. In particular, policies created using FBAC were more likely to be enforced and exhibited significantly lower risk exposure, while not interfering with the ability of the application to perform its intended task. In addition to the success of the functionality-based approach, the usability study also highlighted a number of limitations and problems with existing mechanisms. These results indicate that a functionality-based approach has significant potential in terms of enabling end users with limited expertise to defend themselves against insecure and malicious software.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
授权最终用户限制他们自己的应用程序:比较SELinux、AppArmor和FBAC-LSM的可用性研究结果
保护终端用户免受安全威胁是一个极其困难,但却日益重要的问题。传统的安全模型侧重于将用户彼此隔离,在软件漏洞广泛存在和恶意软件猖獗的环境中,这种模型已被证明是无效的。然而,提供更细粒度安全性的替代方法通常需要比典型最终用户所能合理期望的更多的专业知识,因此成功有限。基于功能的应用程序限制(FBAC)模型旨在允许具有有限专业知识的最终用户根据每个程序打算执行的功能为应用程序分配分层和参数化的策略抽象。为了验证该方法的可行性并评估现有机制的可用性,进行了一项可用性研究,将FBAC模型的实现与广泛使用的基于linux的SELinux和AppArmor安全方案进行了比较。结果表明,基于功能的机制使最终用户能够有效地控制其应用程序的特权,比广泛使用的替代方案成功得多。特别是,使用FBAC创建的策略更有可能得到执行,并且显示出显着降低的风险暴露,同时不会干扰应用程序执行其预期任务的能力。除了基于功能的方法的成功之外,可用性研究还强调了现有机制的一些限制和问题。这些结果表明,基于功能的方法在使专业知识有限的最终用户能够保护自己免受不安全和恶意软件的侵害方面具有巨大的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Information and System Security
ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: ISSEC is a scholarly, scientific journal that publishes original research papers in all areas of information and system security, including technologies, systems, applications, and policies.
期刊最新文献
An Efficient User Verification System Using Angle-Based Mouse Movement Biometrics A New Framework for Privacy-Preserving Aggregation of Time-Series Data Behavioral Study of Users When Interacting with Active Honeytokens Model Checking Distributed Mandatory Access Control Policies Randomization-Based Intrusion Detection System for Advanced Metering Infrastructure*
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1