> At 09:31 PM 2/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Jim Canfield wrote:
> >>The most secure, usable, firewall we have found to date is the
> >>Cyberguard
> >
> >On what basis do you make this assertion? "secure" can mean a lot of
> >things and a rubber stamp from NSA or it's equivalent doesn't mean a
> >whole lot if buggy software can be trivially exploited. We could go on
> >about "usable" but I'll let that one slide. In particular is the
> >firewall configuration an EXACT match with the
> >"certified/tested/evaluated" machine? NT has a C2 rating but it's not
> >worth a damn. When was the last time you ran an NT box with no LAN, no
> >floppy, and with a modified BIOS? Not exactly a useful product. Then
> >again, assuming you duplicate this setup, place said machine nearish to a
> >window. Electronic eavesdropping (for about $3000 and change) or outside
> >observation does tend to degrade the usefulness of said rating does it
> >not?
>
> Firest Mistake. NT is not C2 complient. Anyone knowing anything about LAN
> security would know this. Do a little more research before replying to
> someone. Besides, do you even know the differnet levels of security, or are
> you just "anti-nt".(which is not a bad thing)
Actually, you're quite wrong. NT has been evaluated at C2 in
a standalone configuration, which appears to be precisely what
the gentleman was referring to. Please see:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-95-003.html
-Ekr
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
