Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: PCOEN@drew.bitnet (Paul Coen) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: VMS security/Secure Un*x Message-ID: <0011.9007051920.AA04382@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 3 Jul 90 17:34:00 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 19 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu DEC was working on something to keep their security rating with each new version of VMS; I'd assume they've done it by now. The new features in VMS 5.2 and up are fairly major -- system security can be set to a VERY high level, if one is so inclined. >From what I've head of AT&T's secure Un*x, it doesn't quite have the same degree of privilege separation as VMS. Also, rumor has it that someone at AT&T managed to find critical holes in the distribution version of it. I hope those were repaired. I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) that secure Un*x can take the same degree of evasive action that VMS can. You can have the VMS system lock out terminal/server ports, accounts, even crash itself if too serious an attempt is made to compromise system security. The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s ----------------------- Paul Coen, Drew U. Academic Computer Center (and anthro major). pcoen@drew.edu pcoen@drew.bitnet