Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(November 1995)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: A1 Systems?
From: "K Goertzel" <goertzek @ gateway . wangfed . com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 95 15:21:44 -0500
To: firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
Reply-to: "K Goertzel" <goertzek @ wangfed . com>

In message <Pine.BSD/ .
 3 .
 91 .
 951129093702 .
 5916C-100000 @
 main .
 geminisecure .
 com> 
Leonard Miyata writes:


> Besides Boing's secure network, Gemini Computer's GEMSOS kernal, and of 
> course the original Honeywell Multics, what other "A-1" systems are out 
> there to gain experiance on?


Honeywell's MULTICS was not A1.  It was B2.  You are confusing it with 
Honeywell's SCOMP, which was indeed one of only two systems *ever* to pass the 
A1 evaluation.

Gemini's GEMSOS has been in evaluation for a long time.  I have no idea where it
is in the evaluation process, and if it is any closer to attaining the 
evaluation I was told by a Gemini representative it was supposedly going to 
attain sometime back in 1993.

The SCC LOCK platform was "designed to A1 level criteria" or some such.  
However, recent scuttlebutt is that it was pulled out of evaluation, probably 
because SCC is now frantically busy redesigning their system from the ground up.

TIS and Wang Federal (formerly HFSI, formerly Honeywell Federal Systems) have 
taken a more pragmatic approach to the problem.  Given the functionality of an 
A1 system and the functionality of a B3 system are *identical*, we decided the 
added documentation/mathematical proofs required to attain the A1 evaluation 
were not worth the extra effort and cost, particularly as most users seem 
willing to take on the added risk of using a B3 to meet what would be, according
to the Yellow Book matrix, and A1 requirement.  Indeed, I know a lot of users 
who are using a *B1* to meet an A1 requirement, mainly because B1 systems (i.e.,
CMW) are cheaper over the system's lifecycle, more functional, and give them a 
larger number of potential platforms to choose from.  

The frustrating (to a high-assurance system provider) fact is that perceived 
security risk is, at least in part, directly proportional to the amount of money
a customer is willing to spend on the security countermeasure.  It's amazing 
just how much risk a user is willing to swallow if he has only $1M to throw at a
$10M problem.


Karen Goertzel
Manager, International Programmes and Special Projects
Secure Systems and Services Operation
Wang Federal, Inc.
7900 Westpark Drive - MS 700
McLean, Virginia  22102-4299
TEL: 703-827 3914
FAX: 703-827 3161
Internet:  goertzek @
 wangfed .
 com

+-----------------------------------------+
| Human history becomes more and more a   |
| race between education and catastrophe. |
|                            - H.G. Wells |
+-----------------------------------------+


Indexed By Date Previous: Re: 3 firewalls broken into?
From: Brain21 <brain21 @ montag33 . residence . gatech . edu>
Next: Re: Intruder & Analysis Software
From: jim @ SmallWorks . COM (Jim Thompson)
Indexed By Thread Previous: A1 Systems?
From: Ted Stockwell <stockwel @ sctc . com>
Next: RE: A1 Systems?
From: "Marcus J. Ranum" <mjr @ iwi . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com