UNIX and security <was: Unix & X-Windows on 386SX>

[Tim Wright]

In <168 at raysnec.UUCP> shwake at raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:

>tim at delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes:

>>As has been pointed out, MOST people running unix do NOT want any higher
>>level security than is already provided. It only gets in the way. I get the
>>distinct feeling that if you want "high" levels of security, you shouldn't
>>be running unix in the first place. Any comments ?

>	Sorry, Tim, can't agree. Despite all the references to UNIX' "inherent
>lack of security", even plain-vanilla UNIX supports a higher security
>potential than many OS alternatives, even those of "commercial quality".

Sorry Ray,
I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply "Vanilla UNIX" was
insecure. Far from it. I said that a well set up system probably gave as
much security as most people wanted. Having thought about it and discussed
it those who know considerably more about the subject than myself, I have
changed my mind slightly. I'm not convinced that a vanilla system provides
as much security as people need, but that the implementations of more secure
versions have in general been so appalling (?sp) and detrimental to normal
(i.e. familiar UNIX) system use as to render them unusable/not-used.
I suppose I'd better shut-up here and redirect follow-ups to alt.security.

Tim
--
Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address
Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW       | Domain: tim at dell.co.uk
Tel: +44-344-860456                  | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim
"What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"