Unix & X-Windows on 386SX

[Lyle Seaman]

lee at wang.com (Lee Story) writes:


>This is specifically in response to Mr. Schwake's comment that C2 security
>isn't "part of the government", but rather "a certain level of security".
>(Perhaps the general discussion belongs in another group, but......

Yes, alt.security or misc.security.  And you will find that the consensus
is:  you can't call a system C2-secure unless it has been so certified by
the NCSC (part of the government).

[ ... ]

>My company sells SCO Unix and ODT.  I think they are good products.
>We use and sell it not only on PCs but on i486-based timesharing systems.
>I don't know ANY developer who wouldn't pay a few bucks out of their
>one pockets to have the additional security "feature" completely removed.

Speaking as an administrator, not a developer, I too must agree.  That
feature would be bad enough if it worked reliably, but when it breaks,
it's worse.  If most sites _needed_ to prevent users from reading (eg),
/usr/spool/lp/model/PSstandard, then I could understand.  On the other
hand, I know users that have needed to do so to figure out the options
(source code, the ultimate documentation), but were prevented from doing
so. 

-- 
Lyle                      Wang             lws at comm.wang.com
508 967 2322         Lowell, MA, USA       uunet!comm.wang.com!lws
             The scum always rises to the top.