Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!comm.wang.com!lws From: lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Unix & X-Windows on 386SX Message-ID: <1990Dec13.230923.6916@comm.wang.com> Date: 13 Dec 90 23:09:23 GMT References: <2389@sixhub.UUCP> <1990Nov26.010554.574@fiver> <156@raysnec.UUCP> Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Lines: 30 lee@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@comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!comm.wang.com!lws The scum always rises to the top.