From: Adamsc@io-online.com (Adamsc)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 16:58:23 +0800
To: "Petr Snajdr" <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: WINDOWS NT ????
Message-ID: <19961005065648125.AAA235@GIGANTE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 22:03:17 +1030, Petr Snajdr wrote:

>> > > > > is Windows NT secured system ?
>> > > NT? Secured? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
>> > How ?

>>      By turning off the machine, unpluging the ethernet, moving the
>> hard drive to another state...

>    8-) ..and Os/2,unix .etc.etc. not ?

OS/2 doesn't claim to be a secure multiuser operating system.  If they have
console access, they *can* get almost anything*.  

Unix can be secure, but most places don't run it in the most secure form. 
However, your average Unix box is probably going to do pretty well,
especially if you've compiled Linux with an encrypting file system.


Microsoft claims C2 or higher for NT and deserves any ragging they get if
it's not.   Ditto for any other vendor who claims one thing and sells
another.
BTW:  Bizarre NT Quirk #15413 -  The Administrator account does not have
access to the entire disk.  You got it - if you're the administrator you
still cannot look into certain directories belonging to another user - even
if you've given all access privileges to the Admin account.  Got a few
chuckles at work.


* -  The various OS/2 Servers have a new version of the High Performance File
System. HPFS386 does a much better job of maintaining security.   Apparently
even the boot-floppy that can defeat NTFS won't work.   I haven't verified
this yet because I'm still waiting for my personal copy of Warp Server
Advanced-SMP to arrive.

#  Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com>   | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
#  <cadams@acucobol.com>		 | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY"
"That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
   --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)