The SELinux coloring book [pdf]
people.redhat.com
people.redhat.com
The illustrations that I've found most amazing and well done are created by people like:
Lin Clark (https://code-cartoons.com/)
Julia Evans (http://jvns.ca/zines/)
Linda Liukas (http://www.helloruby.com/)
Amy Wibowo (https://shop.bubblesort.io/)
You may notice a trend with the gender of the authors above. I personally believe that women have a better sense for simplifying complex ideas, and greater empathy and patience for teaching those ideas once they've been made simple.
Here's an edition from 17 years ago: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Brain-Coloring-Book-Concepts/...
SELinux is not a "complex idea", SELinux is a tool with subpar documentation.
A coloring book does nothing to fix that.
(I also have a video explaining some specific/common things: https://serversforhackers.com/video/battling-selinux-cast)
So, maybe this introduction will make it a little more accessible.
I set up a hidden ssh service which was initially fine but after a reboot it failed with some weird permissions issue I couldn't figure out. Turns out this was some weird misconfiguration in SELinux for the Fedora tor package which afaik is still unresolved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279222
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250893
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375369
There's more of these floating around if you search for the right terms. If SELinux was widely well-understood then this would be a pretty simple issue to identify and resolve (note: I'm not well versed enough in it - I've applied a workaround and have resolved to return and fix it properly "later") but it doesn't appear that this is the case
sealert -a /var/log/audit/audit.log
Most of the time, that will give you a detailed description of what's going wrong and tell you the command to fix it. Completely changed my opinion on selinux when I learned it. Also, the SELinux For Mere Mortals[1] talk is a great introduction.I sat the RHCE course/exam recently and the Red Hat trainer dealt with this in... amusing... ways.
Unfortunately, fixing things properly requires knowledge, if only of where to find the information. Thinking solely about file contexts, it's not easy to for example search them. e.g. "show me all contexts related to samba" so you can find the share rw label. (One of the RHEL 7.0 man pages suggests the nfs rw label which doesn't work, had to make a point of remembering that for the exam!) Everything's spread across selinux's man pages, service's man pages... ugh.
In this specific case, you're looking for samba_selinux. It's not perfectly written, but it should at least cover all the relevant information: (https://linux.die.net/man/8/samba_selinux). You mentioned looking for the read/write share label, and that's specifically discussed, and described with examples.
You can also use sesearch to query your selinux policy for more information about anything mentioned in that man page. For example, to understand the implications of setting samba_enable_home_dirs you can run `sesearch -A -b samba_enable_home_dirs`. You can run similar queries for file types, process types, port types, etc. If you really want a list of every type relevant to samba, you can run: `sesearch -A -s smbd_t`. If you wanted to use sesearch to find everything smbd_t can write to, as an alternate method of discovering public_content_rw_t, you can filter that, like: `sesearch -A -s smbd_t -p write -d -c file -C`. This will also show you that the public_content_rw_t rule is conditional on the smbd_anon_write boolean.
I used to teach RHCE courses and exams; I'm curious about the amusing ways of dealing with selinux you encountered.
$ sesearch -A -s some_app_t -c file -p read -p write
allow some_app_t some_type_t:file { read write };
allow some_app_t some_other_type_t:file { read write };
allow some_attribute_of_some_app_t yet_another_type_t:file { read write };
Or, say you want to do the opposite – you know the label, and want to find all domains that can read and write it: $ sesearch -A -t some_type_t -c file -p read -p write
allow some_app_t some_type_t:file { read write };
allow some_other_app_t some_type_t:file { read write };
You can use regexes for the parameters if you don't know the exact types (just specify '-r[stcdb]').I feel like having to worry about complex SELinux configuration isn't going to matter as much for people who start to use containers. Most distributions have SELinux profiles for docker that work, and containers provide a decent level of isolation.
They're not as good as full VMs, and a kernel exploit can still break out of a container, but if you're running all your own in house/trusted code on your container system, it seems like a pretty good trade-off for isolation/security.
... is right about the point where you've lost completely. what is this nonsense? This infantilization of adults is insane.
Here, it may open the subject for broader audience. It is easier to comprehend even for a layman. And even if you're not the one, you could dig in - just for fun.
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.
"Hey, I've heard you're too much of a dumb-dumb to get SELinux to work? Maybe if we turn it into an episode of Dora the Explorer you'll get it this time! Don't forget to renew your RHEL subscription by the way."
the selinux one is just a cute marketing move for red-hat to sell courses
This is one of the weirder artifacts I've come across lately. One of those things for which I like to imagine how a far-future archaeologist would react to it.
That is, if we still made documents that will be around for far-future archaeologists to puzzle over.
Very first sentence:
> The SELinux primary model or enforcement is called type enforcement.
"or" should be "of" or "for". I'm not sure which, because it doesn't even tell you what enforcement means.
First page:
> Imagine a system where we define types on objects like cats and dogs.
"On" isn't a preposition you usually use with "type". You can say things have a type, or are a type, but "define a type on" is a unfamiliar construction.
> A cat and dog are process types.
I'm confused. Do they have types defined on them, or are they the types? Earlier, it said they are objects, now they are process types?
> We have a class of objects that they want to interact with which we call food. And I want to add types to the food, cat_chow and dog_chow.
Using "they" to refer to a noun from the previous page is a little confusing. "food" should be quoted. You can start a sentence with "And", but it feels gratuitous here since the previous sentence is short.
> As a policy writer, I would say that a dog has permission to eat dog_chow write this rule in policy, as shown below.
What happened between "dog_chow" and "write" here? The latter half looks like a random fragment of text. What is a "policy writer"?
> food and a cat has permission to eat cat_chow food. In SELinux we would
We would what?
Finally managed to get it working and get all my sensitivities and categories set up the way I wanted them. Wasn't fun at all.
Before I started I had this idea I was going to use it all the time for all my data. That didn't last long.
The best utility that this has is that it gets people asking questions. I could put this on my wall at work, and then when my colleagues ask about it, I could use it to segue into actually teaching them about SELinux. Putting the SELinux text documentation on my wall would not have the same effect.
here's a couple lost pages found by the grsecurity folks:
https://grsecurity.net/~spender/pics/lost_selinux_coloring_b...
https://grsecurity.net/~spender/pics/lost_selinux_coloring_b...
:)
Answers to questions on eg. finding the difference between "userdom_user_application_domain" and "application_domain", or learning that "~/.local/share" has the symbolic name "data_home_t" are very difficult to find. Everything in SElinux has a symbolic name, so there's also at least one more layer of indirection as compared to apparmor.
It may be that getting into "writing for a coloring book" mode makes people think simpler and "cuter," which lends itself well to quick illustration of complex ideas.
I'd like to see more of this kind of explanation in guides and manuals in general, with the "normal" manuals being for reference when people need to drill down into something specific.