Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(September 1996)
 

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

Subject: RE: NT Security
From: Keith McCammon <keithm @ asymetrix . com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 13:41:00 PDT
To: "'Firewalls'" <firewalls @ greatcircle . com>

C2 security seems basically worthless. You can't have any network, and if   
a perpetrator has physical access to the machine, he/she can just boot   
off a floppy to read your files.

So, if you can't use it with a network as a file server, and if it's   
easily compromised with physical access to the machine, what is a   
practical example of where C2 is actually useful?

Keith McCammon
Asymetrix Corp
*Opinions my own*


On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Joseph S. D. Yao wrote:

> Much has been made of NT's "C2" certification.  I've heard that it was
> certified without the standard NT file system; and with that file
> system, it can't be certified.  Beware.

    It will only comply with C2 standards if you are using the NTFS file
system (not FAT or HPFS) and, of course, as a stand-alone machine after
service pack X (7?) is applied with some other holes closed.

                       ________________________________
                      [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ]
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
             'DISA information shows that computer attacks on the
          Department of Defense are successful 65 percent of the time.
        The DoD, despite its problems, probably has one of the strongest
         computer security programs in government.' -GAO/T-AIMD-96-108




Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: RE: NT Security
From: "Forno, Richard" <Richard . Forno @ mail . house . gov>
Next: [Fwd: First Major NT4.0 Bug]
From: Keith McCammon <keithm @ asymetrix . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: RE: NT Security
From: "Bruce M." <bkmarsh @ feist . com>
Next: RE: NT Security
From: "Bruce M." <bkmarsh @ feist . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com