Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) Subject: Re: SCO Unix security features Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 17:45:14 GMT Message-ID: <1990Aug16.174514.2646@NCoast.ORG> Followup-To: comp.unix.i386 References: <1990Aug13.101924.20284@robobar.co.uk> <1990Aug13. <881@mwtech.UUCP> As quoted from <881@mwtech.UUCP> by martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel): +--------------- | In article <165@edat.UUCP> root@edat.UUCP (Superuser) writes: | Isn't one of the key principles of C2 security the following: | | SECURITY MUST NOT BE ACHIEVED BY OBSCURITY | | or in other words: Isn't any C2-secure system obliged to describe | each and any method *how* their (until then only claimed) security | is implemented? +--------------- This obscurity isn't intended to enhance security; it's just SCO keeping its (l)users fat, dumb, and happy. I suspect the usual slaughter will follow at some point as well.... +--------------- | system which documents its implementation in such a way that you can | not find easily what you are looking for, may well be considered as | one which trys to achieve security by obscurity and hence is *NOT* | C2.) +--------------- The manuals in question didn't even come with my system. (grrr) And even with them, I have yet to find out how to do anything without writing a C program, to be run as root in order to have permissions to massage the authorizations database. And you still haven't answered my biggest question: why do I have to put up with this *at all* when the machines I have to install and maintain this on need nothing more than simple group vectors and /etc/shadow? ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220 (soon others) Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Delphi: ALLBERY uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery America OnLine: KB8JRR