From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 14 11:17:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07405 for security-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:17:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security) Received: from pandora.hh.kew.com (ahd@kendra.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.53.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07396 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ahd@pandora.hh.kew.com) Received: (from ahd@localhost) by pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA05520; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Drew Derbyshire Message-Id: <199710141816.OAA05520@pandora.hh.kew.com> To: petrilli@amber.org, softweyr@xmission.com Subject: Re: C2 Trusted FreeBSD? Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 14:03:45 1997 > 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. ;^) No, that's exactly what they want -- 10,000 or 25,000 people with access to the system but not all it's data. Back in the late 80's a large mainframe system for a government security agency had 25K user accounts on it -- the vendor couldn't get a core dump from them after problems, for the obvious reasons. :-) I believe IBM's VM/XA was C2 certified (a system which could handle 1000 concurrent users pretty easily, so 25K accounts would not be unreasonable); I don't know if they ever went for B1 or not. -ahd- -- Drew Derbyshire Internet: ahd@kew.com Kendra Electronic Wonderworks Telephone: 781-279-9812 AAAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse Anonymous.