Slashdot Mirror

"It turns out that the much-touted Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 TCSEC C2 rating basically states that the operating system assures separation of users and data and audits user and security-related events -- capacities that are essentially standard expectations of any modern 'enterprise' operating system. That rating is essentially two (2) levels out of seven (7) from the rating for utter lack of security (D1). See the U.S. Government's Commercial Product Evaluations page and its associated Trusted Technology Assessment Program (TTAP)'s FAQ entry on TCSEC evaluation rating interpretation for more information. For now, be aware that the evaluation ratings go non-intuitively, from lowest to highest: D1, C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1. Microsoft's rating also only applies to very specific configurations of the Windows NT Operating System and none of its frills -- like ASP, for instance.

Still, even from the standpoint of researching evaluation and certification options, it looks like only International Government Evaluation (i.e. the 'Common Criteria' evaluation process) and perhaps the ICSA certification are available to any vendor who wants to be pro-active and benefit from standards in the process. (Please let me know if you know better!) And I've talked with a number of hacker types who sneer at the idea that any of these certifications are worth the money and effort to put into them.

At the same time, pointy-haired types eat this certification stuff up. In point of fact, government contracts can be much more possible and much easier to obtain if you get certified this way, and as Microsoft's spin-doctoring of their C2 TCSEC rating points out, it just makes the company that has the rating look more responsible, all around, or can, if your readers and customers don't know what the rating actually means.

Sure, it's possible to contract with any security auditing firm to get something or someone to say that your product's at least minimally secure, but it's still unfortunate, but true, that if you want any kind of widely-recognized, standard certification, you'd better actually seek out some kind of formal evaluation and rating.

Do people agree, disagree, and either way, can they prove it?"

"It turns out that the much-touted Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 TCSEC C2 rating basically states that the operating system assures separation of users and data and audits user and security-related events -- capacities that are essentially standard expectations of any modern 'enterprise' operating system. That rating is essentially two (2) levels out of seven (7) from the rating for utter lack of security (D1). See the U.S. Government's Commercial Product Evaluations page and its associated Trusted Technology Assessment Program (TTAP)'s FAQ entry on TCSEC evaluation rating interpretation for more information. For now, be aware that the evaluation ratings go non-intuitively, from lowest to highest: D1, C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1. Microsoft's rating also only applies to very specific configurations of the Windows NT Operating System and none of its frills -- like ASP, for instance.

Still, even from the standpoint of researching evaluation and certification options, it looks like only International Government Evaluation (i.e. the 'Common Criteria' evaluation process) and perhaps the ICSA certification are available to any vendor who wants to be pro-active and benefit from standards in the process. (Please let me know if you know better!) And I've talked with a number of hacker types who sneer at the idea that any of these certifications are worth the money and effort to put into them.

At the same time, pointy-haired types eat this certification stuff up. In point of fact, government contracts can be much more possible and much easier to obtain if you get certified this way, and as Microsoft's spin-doctoring of their C2 TCSEC rating points out, it just makes the company that has the rating look more responsible, all around, or can, if your readers and customers don't know what the rating actually means.

Sure, it's possible to contract with any security auditing firm to get something or someone to say that your product's at least minimally secure, but it's still unfortunate, but true, that if you want any kind of widely-recognized, standard certification, you'd better actually seek out some kind of formal evaluation and rating.

Do people agree, disagree, and either way, can they prove it?"

"It turns out that the much-touted Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 TCSEC C2 rating basically states that the operating system assures separation of users and data and audits user and security-related events -- capacities that are essentially standard expectations of any modern 'enterprise' operating system. That rating is essentially two (2) levels out of seven (7) from the rating for utter lack of security (D1). See the U.S. Government's Commercial Product Evaluations page and its associated Trusted Technology Assessment Program (TTAP)'s FAQ entry on TCSEC evaluation rating interpretation for more information. For now, be aware that the evaluation ratings go non-intuitively, from lowest to highest: D1, C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1. Microsoft's rating also only applies to very specific configurations of the Windows NT Operating System and none of its frills -- like ASP, for instance.

Still, even from the standpoint of researching evaluation and certification options, it looks like only International Government Evaluation (i.e. the 'Common Criteria' evaluation process) and perhaps the ICSA certification are available to any vendor who wants to be pro-active and benefit from standards in the process. (Please let me know if you know better!) And I've talked with a number of hacker types who sneer at the idea that any of these certifications are worth the money and effort to put into them.

At the same time, pointy-haired types eat this certification stuff up. In point of fact, government contracts can be much more possible and much easier to obtain if you get certified this way, and as Microsoft's spin-doctoring of their C2 TCSEC rating points out, it just makes the company that has the rating look more responsible, all around, or can, if your readers and customers don't know what the rating actually means.

Sure, it's possible to contract with any security auditing firm to get something or someone to say that your product's at least minimally secure, but it's still unfortunate, but true, that if you want any kind of widely-recognized, standard certification, you'd better actually seek out some kind of formal evaluation and rating.

Do people agree, disagree, and either way, can they prove it?"

"It turns out that the much-touted Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 and 4.0 TCSEC C2 rating basically states that the operating system assures separation of users and data and audits user and security-related events -- capacities that are essentially standard expectations of any modern 'enterprise' operating system. That rating is essentially two (2) levels out of seven (7) from the rating for utter lack of security (D1). See the U.S. Government's Commercial Product Evaluations page and its associated Trusted Technology Assessment Program (TTAP)'s FAQ entry on TCSEC evaluation rating interpretation for more information. For now, be aware that the evaluation ratings go non-intuitively, from lowest to highest: D1, C1, C2, B1, B2, B3, A1. Microsoft's rating also only applies to very specific configurations of the Windows NT Operating System and none of its frills -- like ASP, for instance.

Still, even from the standpoint of researching evaluation and certification options, it looks like only International Government Evaluation (i.e. the 'Common Criteria' evaluation process) and perhaps the ICSA certification are available to any vendor who wants to be pro-active and benefit from standards in the process. (Please let me know if you know better!) And I've talked with a number of hacker types who sneer at the idea that any of these certifications are worth the money and effort to put into them.

At the same time, pointy-haired types eat this certification stuff up. In point of fact, government contracts can be much more possible and much easier to obtain if you get certified this way, and as Microsoft's spin-doctoring of their C2 TCSEC rating points out, it just makes the company that has the rating look more responsible, all around, or can, if your readers and customers don't know what the rating actually means.

Sure, it's possible to contract with any security auditing firm to get something or someone to say that your product's at least minimally secure, but it's still unfortunate, but true, that if you want any kind of widely-recognized, standard certification, you'd better actually seek out some kind of formal evaluation and rating.

Do people agree, disagree, and either way, can they prove it?"