From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 14 09:01:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26365 for security-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:01:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security) Received: from dworkin.amber.org (petrilli@dworkin.amber.org [209.31.146.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26359 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from petrilli@amber.org) Received: from localhost (petrilli@localhost) by dworkin.amber.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA02819; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:01:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher G. Petrilli" To: Wes Peters cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD? In-Reply-To: <199710141604.KAA10428@obie.softweyr.ml.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Wes Peters wrote: > Christopher Petrilli writes: > > But what about when you have 10,000 users, and you need 486 of them to > > not have access? Do you see the issue of performance slowly creeping up > > when yyou have 50,000 groups? This becomes a hideous nightmare. > > Right. A "secure" system with 10,000 users. You obviously don't > understand security in the same way the government does. ;^) Oh, how odd that is :-) I used to have access to a system in use by the DoD which had almost 20 THOUSAND users on it that was run at B2 level. I'm just addressing that there will be people that need to have a LOT of accounts. Chris