[DNSSEC RFCs]
Ok, thank you :) A quick one (haven't had time to check the RFC), is it so that DNSSEC
will use certificates (crypto keys) to authenticate the hosts?
> PKI == Public Key Infrastructure. Likewise a search on PKI should yield
> more data. Basicly servers/infrastructure to issue/update/verify/revoke
> certificates.
I C. So here the idea is that the hosts autenticate theselves with a certificate?
Being able to authenticate the hosts (be fairly sure of who you are "talking" to")
will do a lot of good for firewalls. But we'll still be depentant on the remote host
being secured properly :/
[RSBAC, etc..]
> > Hmm, TCB?
>
> Trusted Computing Base - part of the OS that's verified for correct
> implementation and security.
Ah, ok. But this "part of" is a bit confusing; Is so that one only installs the
verifed components then (sort of like a bastion host; install only what is needed)?
Who is able to label something a TCB? Is this sort of related to the certification
(don't remember the name of it right now) that NT recieved?
> RSBAC brings role-based computing, ACLs, malware detection, privacy
> models, etc. to the freeware domain. The principle author has done a
> *lot* of work in creating a secure system at the OS level that's in the
> control of the administrator, not the application developer. Given the
> recent discussions of kernel.dll mappings into the application space under
> NT/9x, I think that raising that bar may require MS to answer with some
> more serious designs than their current model seems to indicate they've
> done.
I must admit that I'm not familiar with all does terms. But it sounds interesting, I
guess I better check out the RSBAC site.
> > Agree. I guess I meant to ask, does such an "office suit" exist?
>
> Lots do, they're all not made by Microsoft. I still don't understand how
> all the major companies in the world can't get MS to produce a version of
> Word/Excel that isn't virus-enabled.
Well, I know; But many of these go quite a long way in order to "support" MS Office
don't they? So I was thinking that maybe they where vurnarable to many/some of the
same attacks/viruses?
Is there an "office suite" that you recomend (securitywise)?
Personally I want to go with Star Office, sound ok?
[MS dominance; Security threat?]
> > Problem is, they don't have to: I think they can produce almost any
> > rubbish these days, and it'll sell :( I get very annoyed when when
>
> Until the market starts demanding security, there will be less than is
> optimal. It's our responsibility to ensure that such demands are made and
> that vendors are held accountable for their software.
Yes, money talks; i.e. if consumers rewarded vendors for security, we'd get the
message through a lot faster than us demanding and making statements. IMHO it's a
shame that MS has such a firm grip on the marked, to many there exist no alternatives
--> people buy MS --> MS doesn't have to focus on security.
> > people talk about Bill Gates like this saint that made computers
> > userfriendly (i.e. invented the GUI), thus bringing technology
>
> Xerox PARC did most of the front-end work on computer GUIs, everyone else
> stole it from them.
Yes, I didn't mean that Apple or Commodore or Atari invented this. I just find it a
bit frustrating that Bill G. gets all the credit for makeing computers easy to use,
and that windows is something unique and ground breaking. 99% of all the people I know
sort of keeps track of time using "before & afther windows"! Even people that work
with computers (Sys Admins, etc...) :/
> > forward, yet this attitude is VERY common. What BS! I remeber the
> > first attampts at windows, what a JOKE! I also remember the far
> > supperior OS(GUI) that existed at that time (AMIGA, MacIntosh).
>
> Actually, if I recall correctly, the LISA predated the Mac. The UI was
> the only part of the Mac OS that was nice, I don't think I'd call the rest
> of the system "superior", though I knew a lot of people who enjoyed
> writing code for them, I certainly wasn't one of them.
Yes, LISA came before the Mac. Well, I've never been a Mac fan (or user) myself, it
seemed superior anyway. The AMIGA certainly was ("multitasking since 1985" ;) When it
first came out it was "sexy" :) I mean the first versions of windows (pre 3.0) where
horrible! And 3.0 & 3.1 (when windows took off) too, really. Ok, win 95/98 has some
nice things going for it, but IMHO windows has always been trailing. There was never
really anything to go "wow" about.
> In any case, the history isn't as important as the groundwork we lay for
> the future.
True.
> > Windows was trailing for a long time. Only thing Bill G. did was some
> > "licensing magic", and change the / to \ :( He is a buisness man, not
> > a hacker....
>
> Actaully, I think that Seattle Labs did the character change before MS
> licensed the OS they didn't yet own to IBM. In the early days they
> certainly deserve some credit for sheer gaul.
Really? So they didn't even do that themselves ;) And yes, they do probably deserve
some credit for the early days.
> None-the-less they're in charge of the direction of the bulk of computing
> on the planet today. That leaves us with trying to hold them accountable
> for their actions or trying to overthrow them. Accountablility seems to
> be the best-sum game.
Yes, a sad fact in IMO. With so many other exiting, cool and better OS' they don't
deserve this position.
Regards,
Per
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
