Re: irc summary

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Pfab <pfab@thales.sai.mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: effugas@best.com <effugas@best.com>
Cc: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: irc summary

>1: Microsoft did not cheat to get C2.
>   C2 is simply that weak.
>   In other words: C2 does not say much about security


The engineer who built the system that Microsoft got certified went public
with accusations that MS is abusing his work, misrepresenting it, etc.

You're probably right though.

Can we find a listing of what the various security ratings mean somewhere?

>2: C2 is not NT specific


All the more reason NOT TO USE IT AS A GNOME COMPLIANCE STANDARD.

>3: What do you prefere in our context ?
>
>   Comp2?


Either Gnome Mandated/Required/Desired/Optional + Experimental(forget
theoretical, I think you can have experimental mandates, meaning that once
this feature isn't experimental anymore, it's GONNA be mandatory), or GC1-4
+ EGC1-4.

>Stephan
>