Talk:AppArmor

message: I do not believe this section and its companion in Security-Enhanced_Linux represent a neutral point of view, but instead both appear to be written to promote the view that SELinux's object-based model is preferable to AppArmor's path-based model.  Furthermore, I do not see what this discussion contributes in terms of information to either article.  I would suggest simply deleting the "Criticism" section and simply have each article mention that an alternative approach exists.  (See Talk:Security-Enhanced_Linux for additional discussion.)
Jcarnelian 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I think the part this part is false, since unix and linux employ only inode-based and never path-based access control (apparmor is a path-based attempt):
"While there has been considerable debate about which approach is better, there is as yet no strong evidence that either approach is preferable. Discussion about their relative merits often revolves around which approach is more aligned with existing UNIX/Linux access control mechanisms, but UNIX and Linux use a combination of path-based and inode-based access control"
Hard to imagine what the "evidence" would be apart from pointing out the conceptual incompatibility of apparmor vs unix filesystems which ultimately
makes apparmor unsound. this has been done numerous times on mailing lists...
Reference 7 is erroneously attributed to "James Corbet" - should be "Jonathan Corbet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Corbet
^ James Corbet (2010-10-20). "The 2.6.36 kernel is out". http://lwn.net/Articles/409810.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.234.70 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Best Approach Debate

message: The "Out of Date" box was introduced by the following revision:
:16:45, 30 October 2010 99.231.218.239 (8,376 bytes) (out of date - no info about canonical/launchpad, the lede makes the project sound dead (it isn't)) 
Added reference to canonical's work. Updated stable release info. Guess this issue is fixed.
--188.98.126.254 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date Remark 

message: Does AppArmor come with a UI that could be shown in a screenshot? Regards, [IP]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.250.203 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, each distribution has its own AppArmor configuration GUI (or none at all). --79.214.137.231 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AppArmor. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.techrepublic.com/article/immunix-system-7-linux-security-with-a-hard-hat-not-a-red-hat/1053405
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AppArmor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904032047/http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.36 to https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.36
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I cannot comment on the validity of most of the statement cited from the wiki article itself (see below emphasis for what I am speaking to), but SELinux clearly has a means of supporting NFS at this time. I think the wording should be changed to not only fix the inaccuracy, but to make the statement generalized to the issue: AppArmor is filesystem agnostic and SELinux is not. Think 'future proofing'. Maybe show the difference in code or config?
From the article:
They also claim that AppArmor requires fewer modifications to work with existing systems: for example, SELinux requires a filesystem that supports "security labels", and thus cannot provide access control for files mounted via NFS. AppArmor is filesystem-agnostic.
While this may have been true at the time of the original writing it is not now:
4.9.3. Mounting an NFS Volume
By default, NFS mounts on the client side are labeled with a default context defined by policy for NFS volumes. In common policies, this default context uses the nfs_t type. Depending on policy configuration, services, such as Apache HTTP Server and MariaDB, may not be able to read files labeled with the nfs_t type. This may prevent file systems labeled with this type from being mounted and then read or exported by other services.
If you would like to mount an NFS volume and read or export that file system with another service, use the context option when mounting to override the nfs_t type. Use the following context option to mount NFS volumes so that they can be shared using the Apache HTTP Server:
~]# mount server:/export /local/mount/point -o context="system_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t:s0
108.4.240.75 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  SELinux Cannot Provide MAC for Files Mounted via NFS? 

message: I was trying to find out more about this software but happened to find the Canadian company AppArmor "A division of CutCom Software Inc." Reaading their "About" it seems that they were founded in 2011 - more than 10 years after the subject of this article. Is there any connection between the two; or details of any Copyright/Trademark disputes?
SlySven (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed?