I am with u! You have got the truth! By the way: What is the OS that have B secure or another different than C2_? /javier Peter da Silva wrote: > In article <006e01bead58$79709060$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Don Kelloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But IMO, I think people are either forgetting or overlooking the fact that > >the Windows NT4 op/sys can be made "C2" and "E3/F-C2" secure > > IIRC, the only version of NT that has been evaluated to be "C2" secure is > a specific version of NT 3.5, with flopy drives and NETWORK PORTS removed. > This C2 rating has no relevance to either NT 4.0 or to firewalls. > > >"E3/F-C2" is widely acknowledged to be the highest ITSEC evaluation rating > >that can be achieved by a general-purpose operating system and "C2" is > >widely acknowledged to be the highest TCSEC evaluation rating that can be > >achieved by a general-purpose operating system. > > C2 is about the lowest TCSEC rating that's worth actually paying attention > to. Apart from the auditing requirements, a plain vanilla Linux box could > meet C2 if it were evaluated, and if you turn on enough NT audit logs to be > worth anything you've just added another layer of instability to the system, > because NT falls over when they fill up. > > For a firewall, these ratings only become interesting when you look at > the B ratings and the compartmentalization they bring. Below that, whether > the firewall OS is "rated" or not is almost irrelevant. > > -- > In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > `-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu? > 'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd > > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
begin: vcard fn: Javier Romero n: Romero;Javier org: JaCk Integrators email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] title: Owner note: Make that you love! x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard
