From: Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8de172e3d8d5553a95cf8da2c51d64b122f2a2871fbe0971d56c836c78f68daa
Message ID: <199603222311.RAA09121@shade.sctc.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-23 11:13:11 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:13:11 +0800
From: Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:13:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: NT's C2 rating
Message-ID: <199603222311.RAA09121@shade.sctc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Regarding the comment:
>> Basically, I'm now questioning the C2 rating of Windows NT. The
>> entire security layer is modular to the Kernel. As a modular
>> driver, it can be removed, rewritten, and replaced.
C2 is no big deal. It means you have the typical security measures
that can be disabled or bypassed by a trojan horse. You're not doing
serious protection till you put in mandatory protections like what
appears in B or A level systems.
The big deal is that few vendors have tried to get NCSC evaluations.
Rick.
smith@sctc.com secure computing corporation
Return to March 1996
Return to “Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>”
1996-03-23 (Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:13:11 +0800) - Re: NT’s C2 rating - Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>