Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!ames!amdahl!rrs
From: rrs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Bob Snead)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: access-lists vs. unix permissions
Message-ID: <10210@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 12:01:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.10210
Posted: Wed Jul 15 12:01:57 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 06:38:37 EDT
References: <1334@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 29
Keywords: security
Summary: clarification of discretionary access controls

In article <1334@ssc-vax.UUCP>, herber@ssc-vax.UUCP (David A Wilson) writes:
> According to the article, Unix can satisfy levels up to C2 without any
> significant changes, but no higher. The problem occurs at level B1 which
> requires access-lists for files.
> 

Access control lists are one mechanism for implementing what is called
discretionary access controls, permission bits is another.  Such controls
are required for C-level certification according to the TCSEC (the orange
book).  So, as far as discretionary access controls, UNIX could be
certified at the C2 level.  Permission bits, however, are viewed as a
cumbersome mechanism to control access at the granularity of an
individual.   Access control lists is a much cleaner mechanism.
At the B level mandatory access control is required (Top Secret,
Secret, etc) in addition to discretionary access control (and lots of
other stuff).


Claimer:  "There is no way of exchanging information
that does not demand an act of judgment." - Jacob Bronowski

Disclaimer:  If you perceived opinions in what I have
written they are probably your own and certainly not
Amdahl Corp's.

Bob Snead
Future Computing Technologies
Amdahl Corp.
UUCP: ..!{ihnp4, hplabs, amd, sun, ...}!amdahl!rrs