[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: photuris-06.txt
>There are those who claim that the only reason why mandatory access
>controls are at all useful on modern computer systems is because
>generals want to be able to play (non-classified) Tetris on the same
>system where they have top-secret files stored. Many years ago, it
>might have been useful when it costed millions of dollars to purchase
>and operate mainframe-style systems in a data center.
I agree that the cost of computing hardware has dropped significantly
and will probably continue to drop. More and more of our society
(commercial and Government) is now dependent upon computers in part
because of the improved cost/performance of these systems.
Are computers inexpensive enough that the Government could buy 2
systems instead of one for those users which must deal with data at
two different security levels? I would say yes. (Congress may
disagree.)
Would this substitute for multi-level systems? No. Buying two single
level systems which are never connected does provide strong
separation. However, it does not provide what multilevel systems are
designed for - controlled sharing.
Computer systems (as opposed to stand alone machines) are useful
because they can be networked together. Thus, we are able to exchange
messages, browse the web, and receive up to the minute information. (I
do not need to explain the value of networking to this group.)
Multi-level systems will continue to be important because they provide
controlled sharing of information in a timely manner. They can be
networked to classified and unclassified networks. This provides
decision makers with up to the minute information and allows two way
communication with entities at different security levels.
Tom Markham
Follow-Ups: