Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!vrdxhq!daitc!daitc.daitc.mil
From: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Ingres vs Sybase
Message-ID: <519@daitc.daitc.mil>
Date: 13 May 89 09:30:50 GMT
References: <4306@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz> <2350@canisius.UUCP> <13680@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil
Reply-To: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger)
Organization: DTIC Special Projects Office (DTIC-SPO), Alexandria VA
Lines: 23

In article <13680@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c162-aj@zooey (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>[According to Computerworld, Syabase] is
>(as of the articles read from 1988) the only database with
>government security clearance,

Not true.  What you mean is certification of secure system operation,
and no DBMS has this; none has been certified secure at any level.
Sybase has said they are aiming at getting one of their products
certified at, I believe, the B1 level.  This means they will put
resources into it and they hope to get it.  It doesn't mean they have
gotten it.  No one has.

>data integrity (ie. non null primary
>keys, and matching foreign keys, etc),

Not true.  Unify has this, probably others as well.

But no matter.  This is Computerworld's usual standard of accuracy and
integrity.  If you need the facts, don't expect them to do your
homework for you.

-- Jon
--