The message type certain could be added. However it is not the only way this separation can be achieved.
The label in particular should be able to be used without tying it to a specific service. Admittedly this is somewhat limited atm. 1. the label name on a service does not have to match its executable name so an executable could be labeled with a more generic profile. This however will not work in cases where an executable maybe servicing multiple service end points that want different labels, and would be require #2. 2. while conceptually apparmor supports having none application (domain) labels on objects, the support for enabling a service to provide a different label while creating sockets has not landed yet, so until it does, apparmor policy currently is tying the service confinement and policy tighter than it should. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1692582 Title: RFE: dbus AppArmor mediation matching by message type Status in apparmor package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: Suppose you're writing an AppArmor profile for a D-Bus service like Tracker. The service might get compromised (perhaps it's network- facing) so you don't want it to be able to act as a client of privileged processes like systemd --user. However, imagine you do want arbitrary third-party "apps" to be allowed to use the service if they have appropriate rules in their own AppArmor profiles. One reasonably natural way to encode this without tightly coupling the service and its clients would be: profile /usr/bin/my-service { ... dbus send bus=session type=signal, dbus receive bus=session type=method_call, } profile /usr/bin/my-client-app { ... dbus (send,receive) bus=session peer=(label=/usr/bin/my-service), } However, the AppArmor integration in src:dbus and the rule parser in src:apparmor don't allow this: they match fine-grained information like the method name and object path, but have no concept of message types. This seems backwards: I only expect the object path to be useful in very rare/niche cases, but the message type is "larger" and more important than anything else from the message payload. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/1692582/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp