7 ms·

At the time, Windows NT was lauded for having better security than its competitors. I remember “Department of Defense C2 level security” being invoked often. It

At the time, Windows NT was lauded for having better security than its competitors. I remember “Department of Defense C2 level security” being invoked often. It was a major selling point, though one that didn’t feel relevant for most users (in fact, lots of people felt like “why would I need this?”; it made it seem like an OS that wasn’t for “normal users”). Early ’90s conceptions of security—both what makes it and how relevant it is/for whom—don’t match our expectations or what we consider state of the art today.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Windows XP still likely meets that standard as long as it's air-gapped and placed in a facility that has at least the equivalent level of access control, and never removed.
- pests 3y ago
  ... and never used. That was the punchline?
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    I don't see why? You can safely use it as long as you don't ever connect it to anything that isn't also at the same or higher level of certification.
Veserv 3y ago
Yeah, that was all marketing nonsense meant to confuse laypeople. TCSEC Level C2 was intentionally designed to be a “baby’s first security certification” level meant to allow existing known insecure products to get a (low) rating so that commercial vendors could get familiar with the concept [1]. It, at no point, was ever meant to indicate any meaningful level of security was achieved, just that you filed the paperwork. In fact, Level B1, the level above C2, was meant to be the “training wheels” level. Microsoft has still never achieved a security certification in the successor standard, the Common Criteria, that has reached the “training wheels” level. Microsoft security is a joke now and was a joke then, nothing has changed. [1] https://www.stevelipner.org/links/resources/The%20Birth%20and%20Death%20of%20the%20Orange%20Book.pdf https://www.stevelipner.org/links/resources/The%20Birth%20an...
- helloooooooo 3y ago
  Frankly, those are just box ticking exercises. Same with SOC certifications. Security is not a state of being, it is a process.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    In what world are formal proofs of correctness “box ticking exercises”? You are wrongly extrapolating that the lowest levels of certification, that were literally designed to allow people incapable of more than box ticking to be rated on a unified scale, somehow applies to the levels that were designed to evaluate actual security. That is like saying the Richter scale is useless because you can not even feel a 1.0 earthquake. That is the entire point. The scale can measure from very low to very high. You are complaining that the scale is useless because the lowest ratings are easy to get, yeah, duh, that is why they are low ratings. However, you are correct for SOC. That is because the highest ratings are easy to get and are mere box ticking exercises. If the highest rating is easy, then the standard is useless for evaluating anything beyond that. This logic does not apply when a low rating is easy to get; that just means anything which can only get a low rating sucks.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Adding the word "formal" to something doesn't mean it can do the impossible. It's not realistic to prove things correct, since it's both an impossible amount of work and you'll end up finding that your definition of "correct" was incorrect. (CompCert, a "formally correct C compiler", has had bugs found in it.)
      - Veserv 3y ago
        I do not see how that is relevant to my statement that formal methods, as required by the higher Common Criteria levels, do not constitute “box-ticking exercises”. Or are you arguing that these standards which require proofs of correctness are useless because proofs of correctness are much less impressive than box ticking?
kalleboo 3y ago
> At the time, Windows NT was lauded for having better security than its competitors But not as secure as the classic Mac OS! https://web.archive.org/web/19991128124149/http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Sep1999/a19990901hacker.html https://web.archive.org/web/19991128124149/http://www.dtic.m... > However, he said the Army has moved its web sites to a more secure platform. The Army had been using Windows NT and is currently using Mac OS servers running WebSTAR web server software for its home page web site. Unger said the reason for choosing this particular server and software is that according to the World Wide Web Consortium, it is more secure than its counterparts.
- subharmonicon 3y ago
  > Unger said the reason for choosing this particular server and software is that according to the World Wide Web Consortium, it is more secure than its counterparts. According to the Consortium's published reports on its findings, Macintosh does not have a command shell, and because it does not allow remote logins, it is more secure than other platforms. The report also said the Consortium has found no specific security problems in either the software or the server. That’s a rather dubious conclusion if based on that criteria.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Windows XP still likely meets that standard as long as it's air-gapped and placed in a facility that has at least the equivalent level of access control, and never removed.

pests 3y ago
... and never used. That was the punchline?
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  I don't see why? You can safely use it as long as you don't ever connect it to anything that isn't also at the same or higher level of certification.

Veserv 3y ago

Yeah, that was all marketing nonsense meant to confuse laypeople. TCSEC Level C2 was intentionally designed to be a “baby’s first security certification” level meant to allow existing known insecure products to get a (low) rating so that commercial vendors could get familiar with the concept [1]. It, at no point, was ever meant to indicate any meaningful level of security was achieved, just that you filed the paperwork. In fact, Level B1, the level above C2, was meant to be the “training wheels” level. Microsoft has still never achieved a security certification in the successor standard, the Common Criteria, that has reached the “training wheels” level. Microsoft security is a joke now and was a joke then, nothing has changed. [1] https://www.stevelipner.org/links/resources/The%20Birth%20and%20Death%20of%20the%20Orange%20Book.pdf https://www.stevelipner.org/links/resources/The%20Birth%20an...

helloooooooo 3y ago
Frankly, those are just box ticking exercises. Same with SOC certifications. Security is not a state of being, it is a process.
- Veserv 3y ago
  In what world are formal proofs of correctness “box ticking exercises”? You are wrongly extrapolating that the lowest levels of certification, that were literally designed to allow people incapable of more than box ticking to be rated on a unified scale, somehow applies to the levels that were designed to evaluate actual security. That is like saying the Richter scale is useless because you can not even feel a 1.0 earthquake. That is the entire point. The scale can measure from very low to very high. You are complaining that the scale is useless because the lowest ratings are easy to get, yeah, duh, that is why they are low ratings. However, you are correct for SOC. That is because the highest ratings are easy to get and are mere box ticking exercises. If the highest rating is easy, then the standard is useless for evaluating anything beyond that. This logic does not apply when a low rating is easy to get; that just means anything which can only get a low rating sucks.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Adding the word "formal" to something doesn't mean it can do the impossible. It's not realistic to prove things correct, since it's both an impossible amount of work and you'll end up finding that your definition of "correct" was incorrect. (CompCert, a "formally correct C compiler", has had bugs found in it.)
    - Veserv 3y ago
      I do not see how that is relevant to my statement that formal methods, as required by the higher Common Criteria levels, do not constitute “box-ticking exercises”. Or are you arguing that these standards which require proofs of correctness are useless because proofs of correctness are much less impressive than box ticking?

kalleboo 3y ago

> At the time, Windows NT was lauded for having better security than its competitors But not as secure as the classic Mac OS! https://web.archive.org/web/19991128124149/http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Sep1999/a19990901hacker.html https://web.archive.org/web/19991128124149/http://www.dtic.m... > However, he said the Army has moved its web sites to a more secure platform. The Army had been using Windows NT and is currently using Mac OS servers running WebSTAR web server software for its home page web site. Unger said the reason for choosing this particular server and software is that according to the World Wide Web Consortium, it is more secure than its counterparts.

subharmonicon 3y ago
> Unger said the reason for choosing this particular server and software is that according to the World Wide Web Consortium, it is more secure than its counterparts. According to the Consortium's published reports on its findings, Macintosh does not have a command shell, and because it does not allow remote logins, it is more secure than other platforms. The report also said the Consortium has found no specific security problems in either the software or the server. That’s a rather dubious conclusion if based on that criteria.