[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: photuris-06.txt



At 09:15 PM 11/7/95 -0800, Phil Karn wrote:
>>Yet the current wording which Bill is proposing says that Photoris only
>>works on systems where the military-style mandatory access controls is
>>present.  Surely that's not correct!
>
>Didn't he say that was a typo?
>
>I *do not* oppose attempts to enhance Photuris to protect mutually
>suspicious users from each other. I just don't want those attempts to
>slow down the deployment of the basic system, which was conceived only
>with external threats in mind.

This is thought provoking.

As the lead technical person in the automotive industry action group's
(AIAG) network design effort, I am faced with creating a virtual network for
'mutually suspicious users'.  Our trust models are quite screwy.  A FORD
division won the contract to design a Chrysler instrument panel.  The FORD
MIS people have SU privleges on those design systems.  They have to be
indirectly trusted not to move those designs to the FORD people that design
instrument panels for competing FORD products.  Basically, incestuous trust.
Bud and Dana might be design partners on a welding system for GM and
competing furiously for the same business at Mazda.

And they want we to define the security protocols and methodologies for this
network!

ARGH!!!!

'mutually suspicious users' is a GOOD definition for the "extended enterprise".

Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212