From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9bb56e94a4c5bb5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: TCSEC security levels [was: How unchecked conversion works?] Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:52:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8PwGd.8282$pZ4.6177@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: individual.net g6/qZ/2CTIXEf0yUg86rJAYmb24e0UUizHehZgohNfAKwF9/E= X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: Gemini/1.45d (Qt/3.3.2) (Windows-XP) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7858 Date: 2005-01-16T20:52:05+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > > I remember that the Honeywell SCOMP was evaluated at the A1 level. > > I attended a presentation at a conference in the late 1980's by a > researcher whose project was to create an A1 OS. > ... > He had achieved everything except there was one small covert channel > available. > ... > It seems to me that this system was a success. ... Trying to plug this > kind of hole is a waste of time. I couldn't agree more, and I assume this part of the reason why the TCSEC security levels never really took hold (in the evaluation criteria of major computer systems). In response, the Common Criteria were developed, which don't give the impression of making any greater a mark, yet. -- Nick Roberts