Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site milo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric From: eric@milo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.rumor Subject: Re: Unix (In)Security Message-ID: <778@milo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 09:21:58 EST Article-I.D.: milo.778 Posted: Tue Dec 4 09:21:58 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 05:56:32 EST References: <141@sask.UUCP> Organization: JHU/Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, MD Lines: 16 Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:10762 net.rumor:576 It is true that there have been several attempts to develop "secure" Unix kernel, with varying degrees of success. This is not an indictment of Unix - rather it is praise for it. The reason is that there have only been a couple of other attempts at "secure" operating systems, which have also ended in failure. The fact that several attempts have been based on Unix means that the people involved thought they had a fighting chance starting from Unix. By "secure", I mean something that can run multi-level security in a provably correct way. Can you imagine trying to formally prove VM secure? It boggles the mind. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric