computer security: CS

[Jim]

The CC [Common Criteria] has a test rating called the EAL [Evaluation
Assurance Level]. I have read that win2k for biz has an EAL 4+. This is
without any of the critical updates and I have read in wiki that there
are
at most 7 levels of EAL and anything past 4 is like NSA certified for
government special services employing kernel layer CS policies. By far
more
than any of us would ordinarily need. Does anyone know what the EAL is
for
win98se is, and where to find this data at MS or a qualified
significant
other? Does win98.x have sufficient kernel layer CS policies in place?
Some
people believe win 2k pro was the best that MS ever built is there a
place
to find out about other MS OS like xp and Vista and Longhorn etc.?


--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

 

[philo]

"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23EBKuBOoIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The CC [Common Criteria] has a test rating called the EAL [Evaluation
> Assurance Level]. I have read that win2k for biz has an EAL 4+. This
is
> without any of the critical updates and I have read in wiki that
there are
> at most 7 levels of EAL and anything past 4 is like NSA certified for
> government special services employing kernel layer CS policies. By
far
more
> than any of us would ordinarily need. Does anyone know what the EAL
is for
> win98se is, and where to find this data at MS or a qualified
significant
> other? Does win98.x have sufficient kernel layer CS policies in
place?
Some
> people believe win 2k pro was the best that MS ever built is there a
place
> to find out about other MS OS like xp and Vista and Longhorn etc.?
>
>

Don't know if win98 had any EAL rating but I rather doubt it.

Win2k did not reach EAL 4 until SP3 (might have been sp2 ...but I
think it
was sp3)


IMHO: Win2k is Ok...but only after sp4 and all critical updates are
applied.


--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

 

[Jim]

I have worked on all MS but vista. Also, ibm 360/370, prime and dec
pdp11
workgroups. According to some writes in wiki, much of this kernel
abstraction layer CS is no longer around except in special cases
involving
government high security labels of state transition machines. Such
strong
*-properties are not needed or wanted in the public domain. However,
this
stuff is like '70s and '80s era technology. Cetainly an adequate CS
policy
by '90s and 2k is not unreasonable. I have not had to many problems
with
this win98se. Everyone I have talked to about vista seem to give it a
thumbs
down. I do not know unless I work on a system for awhile. I would like
to
find an EAL for win98.x and xp on up to what is selling today. I am
lossing
interest in MS because of the poor support even before the so called
life
cycle crap. Perhaps I should have ask this stuff in another NG.


--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

 

[MEB]

Well if your really interested in security, why would you run Windows or
one the MS servers anyway.
One of the Unix clones, Solaris, BeOS, or something alone those lines
would
give a much better chance of individual control. Much of what is found
in MS
products comes from outside sources anyway, and generally several years
after it was implemented elsewhere [like not till the next MS OS].
Non Microsoft OSs require more than most common users can provide or
understand: knowledge of what IS in the wild and WHY it should be
protected
against, and what needs to be done pursuant to it. The general
population
[for some unknown reason] wants an OS they can install and get the
*feeling*
that they are protected, and if not, that "Microsoft" will provide some
fix
"for them" [rather than fixing the issue themselves] at some time and
something that contains most of the *goodies* they might use..

I personally, have always considered MS products as produced for the
"masses", not those in the security field or concerned with it. All of
the
OSs were issued with holes big enough to float a battleship through. If
it
weren't for the constant patching, Microsoft would likely have lost the
OS
battle years ago.

On the other side of the coin, 98 CAN be made extremely secure for a
*plain
jane masses offering": from policies, to encryption, to dozens of other
*addins/add-ons* related to security, IF you take the time and make the
effort. And so can the other OSs [keeping in mind the OS may never be
fully
secured].

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________


"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Oa9iDLQoIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| I have worked on all MS but vista. Also, ibm 360/370, prime and dec
pdp11
| workgroups. According to some writes in wiki, much of this kernel
| abstraction layer CS is no longer around except in special cases
involving
| government high security labels of state transition machines. Such
strong
| *-properties are not needed or wanted in the public domain. However,
this
| stuff is like '70s and '80s era technology. Cetainly an adequate CS
policy
| by '90s and 2k is not unreasonable. I have not had to many problems
with
| this win98se. Everyone I have talked to about vista seem to give it a
thumbs
| down. I do not know unless I work on a system for awhile. I would
like to
| find an EAL for win98.x and xp on up to what is selling today. I am
lossing
| interest in MS because of the poor support even before the so called
life
| cycle crap. Perhaps I should have ask this stuff in another NG.
|
|


--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway