[4451] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: ActiveX Bank-Quicken Exploit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Racer X)
Fri Feb 14 20:15:02 1997
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:40:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Racer X <shagboy@world.std.com>
To: Phillip M Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
cc: WWW Security List <WWW-SECURITY@ns2.rutgers.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199702110627.BAA09054@life.ai.mit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The question is "what is untrusted". Most UNIX software was distributed as
> source code and compiled by the end user. Windows software tends to be
> binaries - even if you are prepared to give out source the users probably
> can't compile it. Account based protection is a good thing. If every system
> was C2 compliant - not hard then computer security would be much easier.
Actually, it's a lot harder than you think. Try actually reading the
Orange Book sometime. C2 is similar to having 2 missile keys on
submarines, except that you have to implement the keys in software, which
is a real challenge at best.
> NB: UNIX is not C2 secure merely "generally reckoned to be so" even the
> C2 kits tend not to offer genuine compliance. The standard makes explicit
> requirements for documentation that I've never seen a UNIX system attempt.
> Similarly I fail to see how a system could possibly ship sendmail and claim
> to be C2 compliant.
Then you obviously don't understand C2 too well. The idea behind C2 is
that it doesn't really matter if you GIVE away root access, you've still
got to get past the security officer too.
shag
Judd Bourgeois PGP key ID 0xEDC21CA1
shagboy@world.std.com 25DDE4AF C5AFEF51 6905DC77 360F0387
To all my friends - It's not the end
The earth has not swallowed me yet - 311, "Freak Out"
