Firewalls: Re: Most Secure Unix?

Firewalls
(February 1996)

Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject:	Re: Most Secure Unix?
From:	Scott Barman <scott @ Disclosure . COM>
Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:09:46 -0500 (EST)
To:	Wayne Gifford - Internet Commerce Group <giff @ congress . East . Sun . COM>
Cc:	Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to:	<199601292147 . QAA06214 @ traveller . East . Sun . COM>

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Wayne Gifford - Internet Commerce Group wrote:

> 
> There are no secure UNIXes, only security concious administrators

Geez... we're back on this again?

How about: There are no secure OPERATING SYSTEMS, only security
conscience administrators/sysops/people who give a darn.  Is that
OK and politically correct?  I sure hope so!

scott barman
--
scott barman                  DISCLAIMER: I speak to anyone who will listen,
scott @
 disclosure .
 com                      and I speak only for myself.
barman @
 ix .
 netcom .
 com
  "Micro$oft and Windoze/NT will be the cause of the de-evolution of
   network security just as the original PC and BASIC was the cause of
   the de-evolution of programming."	- scott barman

References:

Most Secure Unix?
From: giff @ congress . East . Sun . COM (Wayne Gifford - Internet Commerce Group)

Indexed By Date	Previous:	firewalls, email, and dns From: "Lehrer, Neil" <nlehrer @ usia . gov>
Indexed By Date	Next:	Re: NT's TCP/IP stack + NetManage NEWT conflict. From: NetSurfer <netsurf @ pixi . com>
Indexed By Thread	Previous:	Most Secure Unix? From: giff @ congress . East . Sun . COM (Wayne Gifford - Internet Commerce Group)
Indexed By Thread	Next:	Most Secure Unix? From: don_tompkins @ esd . tracor . com