Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

[Solved] Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

Message
Author
User avatar
Raymzap
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:40 am

[Solved] Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#1 Post by Raymzap » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:19 pm

Hi.

Should MX (or even plain Debian) have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?
Last edited by Raymzap on Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GNU/Linux User #470660

Linus Torvalds: "Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."

User avatar
anticapitalista
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5729
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#2 Post by anticapitalista » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:27 pm

Raymzap wrote:Hi.

Should MX (or even plain Debian) have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?
Tell us why you think it/they should.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX-17 "Heather Heyer" - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
Raymzap
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:40 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#3 Post by Raymzap » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:30 pm

anticapitalista wrote:
Raymzap wrote:Hi.

Should MX (or even plain Debian) have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?
Tell us why you think it/they should.
Hi AC. I'm not sure. It's just that Ubuntu has it auto installed and configured by default for a long while now and wonder if a Desktop OS will be less secure without it or some other security module like selinux, etc.
GNU/Linux User #470660

Linus Torvalds: "Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."

User avatar
stsoh
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:11 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#4 Post by stsoh » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:03 pm

pls dun......if u prefer pls use ubuntu, dun use mx. :frown:
100% nono from me.
MX-17.1_x64 Horizon, G41M-P33 Combo(MS-7592), Pentium E5400 (min/max: 1203/2700 MHz), 8Gb RAM (800 MT/s),
Intel 4 Series Integrated Graphics, Realtek PCIe Fast RTL8101/2/6E, PCI Gigabit RTL8169 Ethernets.

User avatar
Eadwine Rose
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 6094
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:10 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#5 Post by Eadwine Rose » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:52 pm

stsoh wrote:pls dun......if u prefer pls use ubuntu, dun use mx. :frown:
100% nono from me.

mod hat on:

stsoh: please use regular English and not leet speak, it makes things hard to follow. Thanks
MX-17.1_x64 Horizon 14-3-2018 * 4.15.0-1-amd64 ext4 Xfce 4.12.3 * AMD Asus M4A785TD-V EVO AM3 * ASUS GF GT640-1GD5-L NVIDIA 384.130 * AMD Proc. Athl II X4 635, sAM3 * HDA ATI SB VT1708S An * 2x4Gb DDR3 1600 Kingst * 22" Samsung SyncM P2250 * HP F2280

User avatar
stsoh
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:11 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#6 Post by stsoh » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:11 am

Eadwine Rose wrote:
stsoh wrote:.......100% nono from me.
mod hat on:

stsoh: please use regular English and not leet speak, it makes things hard to follow. Thanks
my apology for bad english....it is singlish as my native reaction to op.

here is my response to op in proper english:
reason why i oppose is most or many linux users had several linux distro jump from one to another and never really satisfy with one. mainly due to app breakages and restrictions. if mxlinux is to follow suit as ubuntu, mint, or others, then i(we) as linux user(s) will be seeking for similar type of mxlinux again.

edit note:
if this is to be implemented, pls do not set enable by default. pls give an options to enable or disable. ubuntu or apparmor users have been disabling apparmor (google for "apparmor disable") or removing it.
Last edited by stsoh on Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
MX-17.1_x64 Horizon, G41M-P33 Combo(MS-7592), Pentium E5400 (min/max: 1203/2700 MHz), 8Gb RAM (800 MT/s),
Intel 4 Series Integrated Graphics, Realtek PCIe Fast RTL8101/2/6E, PCI Gigabit RTL8169 Ethernets.

User avatar
cpoakes
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#7 Post by cpoakes » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:32 am

Upstream Debian had a proposal last summer to explore configuring apparmor in testing (buster) and sid. I would monitor this development and see how it is or is not adopted there and then follow upstream. I would be concerned about creating configuration and maintenance headaches for our dev team if our Mother Distro was not on top of apparmor configuration for all applications.

skidoo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#8 Post by skidoo » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:39 pm

I'm not sure
Raymzap, considering that Ubuntu desktop systems are pre-configured to use password-less sudo it's reasonable to expect that sez-on-the-tin "AppArmor inside!" is primarily marketing hype. If the as-shipped default AppArmor configuration is set to learning mode, it will probably seldom ever "make a peep" ~~ fostering a false sense of security. Few (if any) casual desktop users will have the patience to learn the ins/outs of AppArmor administration. Even if you do, its administration is a relatively exacting, time-consuming chore. WHEN you do, let's meetup and check whether we agree that the PATH-BASED mandatory access control afforded by AppArmor represents a non-ideal approach to securing an operating system.

User avatar
stsoh
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:11 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#9 Post by stsoh » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:27 am

no good news, it''s in mx. it's disabled, i want to rip it off. :frown: :bawling:
start searching new distro.....no luv for mx.

Code: Select all

$ dmesg|grep ram
[    0.000000] Base memory trampoline at [ffff880000099000] 99000 size 24576
[    0.004794] Security Framework initialized
[    0.004802] AppArmor: AppArmor disabled by boot time parameter
.........
MX-17.1_x64 Horizon, G41M-P33 Combo(MS-7592), Pentium E5400 (min/max: 1203/2700 MHz), 8Gb RAM (800 MT/s),
Intel 4 Series Integrated Graphics, Realtek PCIe Fast RTL8101/2/6E, PCI Gigabit RTL8169 Ethernets.

User avatar
Leo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:25 am

Re: Should MX have apparmor installed and configured by default like Ubuntu?

#10 Post by Leo » Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:11 am

It shows it not installed in Synaptic, on mine, anyway. I've used this "distro" for a decade, from SimplyMEPIS through MX, and it's not sensible to abandon it because you think it has AppArmor installed. Just sayin'...
There are exceptions to every rule...
and I know I'm exceptional... :lion2:
:linuxlove:
Linux user #415188
Linux machine #446574
Athlon 64 3400+, nVidia FX 5500, 2GB, MX-16

Post Reply

Return to “Software / Configuration”