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