Slashdot Mirror
NSA Backing Secure Linux OS Development
ColPanic writes "Looks like the NSA is gonna have a Linux OS of their very own soon. They have selected Secure Computing to develop a high security version of Linux."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Not to start a war, but why not OpenBSD?
Wouldn't it be better to audit OpenBSD for their purposes, since it's already designed for that purpose. Or even FreeBSD?
I asked the question because I am honestly interested in the answer, not some zealot telling me, "LINUX IS SECURE!" or something inane like that.
Will they ever be allowed to make their changes to Linux available to the general public?
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
what are the licensing issues involved here? It talks about creating a secure 'commercial operating system'. I wonder...
I mean, it ought to be publically available, but this *is* the NSA we're talking about here, so I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Ideas? Anyone? Bueller?
I have no
Mabye i'm a cynic, but why is it i'm not thrilled about the /NSA/ making a secure linux. I'm sure they will have all sorts of inventive ways to be dicks with our linux.
Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? The NSA, arguably one of the most secretive agencies in the US government using LINUX, one of the most open and freely available software platforms in the world today? I guess we can assume that the NSA version will not remain Open Source.
Well, first post, or not, I find the idea of a high security linux somewhat fascinating. I'm also glad that I turned down my filters to allow viewing the -1 posts, which I find most are very funny!
Jim
Remember to take out the trash if you want to send email to me.
Wow, this'll be neat to see! We don't here a lot about Linux being used by the Gov't., except for the few obvious ones in the last year or so...I forget, but wasn't it an army web server or something? Anyway, NSA has the bucks to spend on a project like this...if they stay behind it. So, will they release this Secure Distribution under the GPL? ;-)
OTOH, they have kindof a history of being..uh..a bit abusive of their "friends."
For all of you that aren't as fascinated by the NSA as I am, you need to read The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford.
"Secure Computing's patented Type Enforcement technology provides network security protection that is unique to the industry. "
Hmm.. see the word patent there? Im sure you did.
Ok, from what I gathered skimming over that article is that this would be done to the linux kernel? which is GPLed..
What happens if they use patented "stuff"(for lack of a better word right now) in the kernel itself, which is under GPL, meaning they have to make the source avaliable for everyone, who can then change it and so on?
Will this even be an issue?
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Remember, the GPL only requires you to give source to people you give binaries to. If Secure Computing only gives binaries to the NSA, there is no reason they need to give source to Linus.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
first off why not OpenDSD. Could it be come licencing thing. Some one needs to make sure that they release there code changes back into the public. Any one email the company or the NSA and get any response?
I think this is particularly good news, even though there are probably going to be some licensing issues to work out.
This is another feather in the cap of linux as a commercially viable Operating System. I think it will give additional credibility to Linux in the business world, as well as provide further incentive for the government to replace their commercial machines with open-source equivalents. Think about it.. I think this is at least B2-grade (correct me if I'm wrong), and windows has a hard enough time reaching C2...
It would, of course, be the best if the code modifications were released as open source... we all know by now that "security by obscurity" is a really bad way to go... and if they make patches directly to the kernel they have to release them under the GPL. Unless, of course, the government decides it's a matter of "national security", in which the normal rules don't apply.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
If the NSA were to develop this in-house, which they have every right to do, then I wouldn't think they are contractually obligated to release any of the updated source code to the general public. However, if they're commissioning another company to do this, then that company is essentially selling the new version of Linux to the NSA and then, by the GPL, aren't they required to make that source code somehow available for free? My understanding of the GPL may be fuzzy, but if I remember correctly, they have to make kernel changes (which I would assume that this would probably require) available. Does anyone have details on exactly how 'Type Enforcement' works, and whether it takes any kernel changes to implement?
Of course, if they can do it without kernel changes, the point's moot.
Someone please illuminate me, but isn't it true that Windows NT is only certified "secure" when *not* connected to a network. NOw, I think that's DOD, not NSA, but still ...
... being connected to a network? :)
Will the Secure Linux be OK'd for little unimportant things like
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Good for the NSA. I'd much rather see them try to hide any backdoors in open, human readable source than inside unfathomable MS-Windows. Or do they plan on having some "binary only" bits?
Perhaps the NSA realizes that making US computers more secure is better than trying to weaken everybody to help their spying.
-- Robert
From the article, it sounds like NSA is "simply" contracting to have a commercial product using already patented technology ported to Linux, rather than contributing Open Source security tools. Even if that's the case, improved non-open-source tools may stimulate the development of open-source equivalents, as illustrated by the excellent OpenSSH project.
I think this is particularly good news, even though there are probably going to be some licensing issues to work out.
This is another feather in the cap of linux as a commercially viable Operating System. I think it will give additional credibility to Linux in the business world, as well as provide further incentive for the government to replace their commercial machines with open-source equivalents. Think about it.. I think this is at least B2-grade (correct me if I'm wrong), and windows has a hard enough time reaching C2...
It would, of course, be the best if the code modifications were released as open source... we all know by now that "security by obscurity" is a really bad way to go... and if they make patches directly to the kernel they have to release them under the GPL. Unless, of course, the government decides it's a matter of "national security", in which the normal rules don't apply.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Besides, if they want a secure UNIX, why wouldn't they go with DG/UX, which has already been rated at B2 and E2 in the USA and the UK. It runs on Intel platforms too, and would take a lot less work to get to whatever level of security they want with a lot less potential legal hassles than if they tried to build on Linux.
And somehow I don't see them willingly releasing anything as Open Source. That's just not like them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Will this pave the way for an NSA-Linux IPO? ;-)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I *thought* anything Linux now runs under all of the *BSDs, unless I am wrong, there is no reason not to just use OpenBSD for any application you would use "secure" Linux.
Besides, *BSD even supports USB now for even more gadget connectivity.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Because theo is a loose cannon. Ask the NetBSD folx.
-russ
Their "Patented Type Enforcement Security" described here sounds an awful lot like the capabilities support already under development for the linux kernel.
The scope of the "type enforcement" implies it would have to be done in the linux kernel. If so, there's going to be a serious licensing question here because there's no way that kind of change can be put in a module.
--
314-15-9265
Their just out to smoke screen obfuscurate the OS community to hide the fact they have quantum code breaking machenis which will break ány exsisting crypto. Better yet, by submitting inferior crypto, you hold back development of better stuff.
Greats SlashDread
Proof to me, their NOT out to get me
As Michael H. Warfield points out in this linux-kernel message, it's a golden opportunity to get IPSEC into the 2.4 kernel, and US-based Linux distributors can now bundle PGP, SSH, etc., with their next versions.
Maybe the spooks (or at least, the spook-meisters) are doing a 180 turn on how to deal with cryptography distribution, from "don't let anyone else have it" to "if everyone else has it, we want it, too".
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
whata great idea! let's all go out and buy someting 'secure' from a government trying to take away our freedoms! then after that we can all have tea with Castro! grr...this is a load of BS. i bet the only reason the NSA is doing this is to take advantage of the popularity of linux and the fact most people are stupid and 'phear' NetBUS to get thousandas of computers with backdoors. not to mention the fact that large amounts of crackers are going to go 'hey! i can break into stuff and wage h4x0r war and no can get l3et0 on my a5$!' thus letting the feds right on into them. as for Linux as a choice if they actualy have good intentions, i suppose it fits as the GPL and the NSA are both devil spawn
but if Linux is so secure and hack-proof in a correctly installed system, why should the NSA need an "ultra" secure version of Linux to be created/developed?
why wouldn't they just have some linux guru's monitor the system and close off the trapdoors?
you might call me an idiot, but this seems to be against what all the linux touters out there preech about linux
Probably because openbsd is from canada. Don't forget this is the US government we're talking about. An elephant is just a mouse designed by a government committee.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I have a friend who's father consulted for the government. They developed a portable Gas Chromatograph setup, with lots of bells and whistles, to help them detect the production of biological and gas weapons. They used patented and copyrighted technology from about 3 or 4 commercial products, and did not have to pay any licenses, or even consult with the companies that held these patents/copyrights.
grr. frames.
The correct link is here
--
314-15-9265
This is entirely correct. If you want to modify the kernal, and keep your modifications to yourself, no one can break into your house and force you to help out your neighbor :)
HOWEVER, if they do release the binaries, then they'd be obligated to release the source as well; though, this would be assuming that the NSA has to not break the law...
Also, as someone else pointed out, if they contract this work out to a 3rd party, that party must provide NSA (and whoever else they sell this to, or allow to obtain binaries) with the full source code.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
When does the government get off on patenting technology? We pay the taxes, now it wants to exclude us and maximize its profits? Damn, I always knew the US government is the world's biggest business.
I emailed the Goverment Contracts divison of Secure Computing to see how they would handle the different restrictions the GPL places on them, the address is govt@securecomputing.com, by the way, baring them being under some kind of "non-disclosure" agreement i hope to get an answer soon....short of that, any body know of a public-relations email for the NSA? Comeon people, don't just sit there, get involved!
Um, I can see it all happening:
Why not BSD?
GPL violations!
Waaagh.
I think people are missing the point.
Yes, we know BSD is more secure.
Unfortunately it is less popular. I know this doesn't justify it being "overlooked", but it meas it will be to an extent.
It makes sense to go for linux for a couple of reasons:
Popularity==more coders have developed it.
Poplularity==more people are likely to knwo how to use it.
However the most important point is that a SECURE version of linux is being created.
OK so it'll probably have more NSA backdoors in it than a M$ prosuct has bugs (and NSA backdoors), but as the GPL states:
You have to release the fucking source.
---or something..
This will only be of benefit. It can't hurt people, (except those with a chip on their shoulders)....
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
I'm sure some of the NSA agents have cute teenage daughters.
You know what to do...
I don't get it...as described in their page...
The called "Patented Type Enforcement Security" is just a re-implementation of protection domains...
So, what's new about it? and how is it going to make "EVERYTHING" secure??
AFAIK, the whole idea of protection domains is to make "programs" run in it's enviroment without screwing the next door's process...(some toy OS forget this issue).
But this doesn't mean that nobody will find it's way into the server, in whatever protection domain he/she gained acces and screw things up anyway...so, where's the ultrasecure thing??? Maybe I'm missing a point...enlighthen me...
The NTA is Slashdots Meeept-technology blowchunks organization that ensures unimportant and insensitive flamebait post activities in the Andover Slashdot community are protected from exploitation through interception, unauthorized moderation, or related non-technical unintelligent threads.
Flamebait Computing's patented Open Source Drew Barrymore technology provides off-topic security protection that is unique to the industry. This technology, first petrified under previous government contracts, is available today as part of the *NIX OS for Flamebait Computing's PostmastahMick(TM) firewall. Troll Enforcement un-secures underlying operating systems and does not protect closed source applications or Llamadot services, by segmenting them into -1 Redundant domains. Each -1 Redundant domain is moderated down to troll only on specific account types, including off-topic posts. As such, each -1 Redundant domain provides a self-contained, excrement layer of protection that cannot be altered. Implementing Troll Enforcement within the operating system itself provides assurance that the highest level of troll activity available in commercial threaded sites.
.
Trollmastah
Is it alowed to take the implementation of their patented "Type enforcment" from the source and put it in my some other GPL:ed program or would thar be a violation of their patent? What about if someone sold the program and sold support for it?
I don't get it...as described in their page...
The called "Patented Type Enforcement Security" is just a re-implementation of protection domains...
So, what's new about it? and how is it going to make "EVERYTHING" secure??
AFAIK, the whole idea of protection domains is to make "programs" run in it's enviroment without screwing the next door's process...(some toy OS forget this issue).
But this doesn't mean that nobody will find it's way into the server, in whatever protection domain he/she gained acces and screw things up anyway...so, where's the ultrasecure thing about this???
If you give this kernel to another person, you have to give/make available the source to them (but not necessarly anyone else). Besause of the GPL, you can't keep them from giving it to the world.
If the NSA keeps this as an 'in house' system, they don't have to give the source to anyone.
Without trying to sound like one of the snickering "so is the NSA going to GPL their changes?" crowd, I'd like to point out that I think it's actually a really good question.
Now, obviously if the changes made for security purposes were going to be made for their own in-house use, there's not necessarily going to be a GPL conflict. (You aren't required to distribute source changes to people who aren't using the product, are you?)
If they're talking about marketing a "secure Linux" product while chanting the "security through obscurity" mantra and refusing to release the source for their changes (assuming they don't simply slap a pile of closed-source packages on top of the kernel), then one of two things is going to happen in a court battle:
* The verdict is that any changes to the Linux kernel and any included GPLed programs have to be made available. Best-case scenario for free software advocates (and everyone else, in my opinion).
* For some yet-to-be-known reason, the courts declare the relevant provisions of the GPL to be invalid. I personally can't think of a reason why they would do this, though I would suspect they'll try to invoke "reasons of national security" or intellectual-property rights.
So I guess my question is:
If, for some reason a court would declare the GPL invalid, in whole or in part, what would this mean to Linux and the rest of the free software community?
Jay (=
Will Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox suddenly die of a heart attack if they refuse to implement NSA's backdoors into the kernel?
Then I remembered a previous GPL argument, when a company had made -internal- changes and did NOT have to make the changes public, as the GPL does NOT cover these.
The NSA version would fall into the same category, I suspect, with contractors deemed a part of the same organisation, as far as the GPL is concerned. Always assuming the contractor developed any of the secret stuff. The NSA has more than enough top people to code that part themselves, just to make sure there isn't a GPL conflict.
Then, I wondered why they didn't branch off from OpenBSD. That's already mostly secure, there's a good base to work from, and it's stabilty is phenominal. Then I realised. They've probably already GOT ultra-secure versions of OpenBSD for PC-based, single-processor servers, but Linux isn't just for PC's or just for one processor.
If you want a lightweight system that'll run on embedded devices (such as wiretaps), massive-scale multi-processor devices (such as extreme number-crunchers eg: code-crackers, etc), or obsolete hardware (such as stacks of IBM S/390's) then Linux is the one to go for. It's ideal for such functions and such platforms. OpenBSD, etc, would require too much work to make them both multi-processor and multi-platform -enough- to be useful in a meaningful timeframe.
This isn't to start any kind of flame-war, but I'm sure OpenBSD is used in it's primary environment (because it's GOOD), and Linux is going to be used everywhere else (because it's GOOD -and- THERE.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Grep /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/znet.c...
Linux makes a whole lot of sense for NSA as it is stable, free, and runs beowulf quite well. Beowulf maybe to crack codes?
Anyone seen someone from NSA at a Linux meeting (DOD?)?
NT only made C2 when NOT on a network, and there may have been some funny stuff going on. B2 is needed for multi-level security stuff (secret, confidential, and unclassified on the same machine). Does this code provide B2.
As for GPL, they would only have to release their patches to ones using their code -- so long as it is inhouse, they don't have to release it. OGA could use it too, but the OGA would have to be able to get the code. They could even make the patches classified and no one outside their sphere would have access, GPL or no GPL.
Man, talk about a version conflict...
=================================
ERROR 10948:
Red Flag Linux detected. You did
not see this error, and troops have
been dispatched to your location, you
filthy traitor. Remain seated and your
death shall be quick and painless.
=================================
-- RED, WHITE, AND BLUE FLAG LINUX
"Yes, we're developing a distribution.. but if we told you anything more we'd have to kill you (and the binaries)."
Comments like this qualify for segfault's news & satire... ./ since it's beggining!
Only some idiot can moderate this down...c'mon fun comments have been part of
Read more closely. They allow you to post the source-code. The binaries appear to be another kettle of fish...
Take a look at a longer description that I got from Frank Hecker in email.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
If I modify the Linux kernel so that it works with a PCI card that I built in my basement, am I required to give people the source?
NO.
However, if I modify the Linux kernel and give it or sell it to other people, THEN I have to give them the full source along with that. There's no rule that says I have to share--I can keep my modifications to myself, as long as I don't give anyone the binary, either.
Of course, it would be Really Nice of them...
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
And while I'm here let me mention something else that just occured to me. Thinking back to Stallman's original complaint about working with software he couldn't get the source too... who are the "parties" that the license is talking about? The GPL will do more of what it is supposed to if "parties" means "end-users" rather than "owners". For example, what if some company is so huge that their employees make up a sizeable market. Those employees ("users") ought to have access to the source, not the "owners" of the computers or the modified GPLed code.
I haven't been able to get through to their website. Do you think its the slashdot effect? They may get the wrong idea and suspect there is a massive DoS attack going on.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
For those of you with licensing concerns, perhaps you might request that Secure Computing posts, in a public manner, its understanding of how and if it is obligated to release any source code changes. Since they haven't specifically mentioned that they are `publishing' their work, or even any mention of the GPL, this might be a nice way to coax them *without* pre-emtivaly flaming...
http://www.securecomputing.com/C_Cont_FRS.html
http://www.securecomputing.com/C_Cont_FRS.html
It only makes sense if you think about it.
0. They have access to every line of code, so there are no surprises(unlike some OTHER OSes which has problably been burning them from time to time for years.)
1. They are still using an OS with strong features.
2. They can also see the source for every single app they decide to use(or not to use)
3. Now that there are multiple wordprocessing/Office packages out there which are able to handle MS Office's formats, the biggest complaint of all the nay-sayers from within has lost its footing.
From NSA's standpoint, this will finally give them control over the operating system on thier computers. They have probably had this in mind for years and only been waiting for Linux to mature to the point that it was highly useful and definitely beyond the point of losing its momentum. I can only see good in this right now(I have blinders on) because once NSA developes this, all the other branches of govornment will tend to jump on the bandwagon with them. Lets face it: that will only be good for Linux, having all those users in the govt being forced to use Linux at work. Then many will use it at home, too.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
The NSA themselves aren't going to be the ones making changes to Linux, Secure Computing is. The responsibility for releasing modifies code lies with them. Both the NSA and Secure Computing knew the restrictiveness of GPL'd code before they entered into contract together. If they really had a problem with this, they would have went with one of the BSD's.
Sending profane emails to your peers just ain't cool. The guy is a loose cannon.
Secure Computing, from all indications, is probably the best of the major firewall/security vendors to have gotten involved with this sort of project in terms of "with-it-ness" and overall technological knowhow.
This project is probably something Secure Computing themselves were interested in already. Most of their products are run on heavily-modified versions of BSDI 1.x, for which they purchased a source license many years ago, which means they carry along all the baggage of what sort of hardware compatibility that ancient version has, namely very little at this stage in the hardware game. (For example, the last time I was around to help set up a Secure Computing firewall, we had to dig up an old ISA Adaptec 1542 SCSI controller for the box.) I'm sure they were just waiting for one of the FreeOS's to reach a state of stability that they could grab the sources and mod them to work for their own uses. I would guess that they picked Linux over one of the BSD's at this point based on hardware compatibility or market share as opposed to strictly technical reasons since they obviously have people who are very familiar with the BSD kernel on-staff already.
It will be interesting to see what they do with any mods they make to the kernel, since I predict they'll be using their hardened Linux kernel as the base for new product lines in the same manner they're using their hardened BSDI kernel now. Since they'll be shipping binaries to customers, the GPL will require them to also ship source code, unless they manage to figure out how to harden the kernel strictly using modules, which I don't see as possible.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
It is interesting to see this news coming out when finally we are seeing US lawmakers trying to ease the use of encryption. So does this means that NSA decided to "if you cannot win them, join them"? Maybe. And that will be funny. Because then we are starting to face Open Source not as an outsider but its opponents. IBM is here (and some IBMers smiled at me a year ago when I said that IBM would join the bandwagon...). Intel, Sun, Apple, AT&T, Cisco are, with some caveats, here. Thousands of companies, corporations and individuals are here. Governments and state institutions are coming into it...
Novell seems on the outside somehow. It started with good intentions but nothing seems to move there. Strange when Noorda's second child, Caldera, is one of the big players. Microsoft seems to make one step further, two steps back all the time since 1998. A few seem to step back into old methods. But the fact is: Open Source is now the main software player.
Maybe that's the whole point. The NSA isn't just about keeping security out of the hands of Americans. They have for a long time assisted American buisness in keeping their information secure as they regard this as helping national security. If they release an open source secure OS then a lot of researchers are going to be intrested and their intrests in securing American buisness will be furthered.
I think a techie from NSA was attending the Ottawa Linux Symposium. If I remember well, he even get caught asking suspicious questions at the FreeS/WAN conference. But I may be wrong.
The GPL apply to the case somebody modify a GPL'd software and sell it with/without the sources and try to forbid the user to redistribute it further, but I wonder what the GPL would say in this case.
If the NSA asks this company to make a secure Linux and buy it from them they can keep the sources for them but is their a loophole in the GPL allowing the NSA to make them sign a contract not to sell it to anybody else?
I don't say there is such one because I haven't read the GPL inn a long time but I wonder if their is a loophole in the case of the buyer trying to restrict the producer and not the other way around (goal for which the GPL was thought).
Anyone has got a clue???
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Not exactly offtopic, but obliquely connected - I've always thought things like this, the govt adopting, deploying, using an OPEN software referance model, would be the best way to solve the MS 'monopoly' problem without resorting to draconian 'break 'em up' or worse measures, kinda like all the technological 'spin off's' we got from the Space Program.
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Get your favorite distribution on a CD-ROM. You can secure a Windows CD with this method as well.
Burn the entire CD rom with a blowtorch until it is black and crumbly. Run the entire thing through a coffee grinder until it is dust. Next, make a meatloaf, and add all the ground up dust to it. Eat the meatloaf. Wait a day, then shit the entire thing into the Pacific ocean.
Crackers will see that your distribution is a difficult target and move on to an easier site.
I was a former employee of SCC, and I may partially agree with your statement, however that was in the past.
The CEO was a corrupt bugger and inflated the stock price and sold tons of stock.
Now there's a new guy in charge (formerly from Intel who is very well respected) as of last April, and he has been doing an amazing job turning the company around.
Take a look at the stock price today.
Their unix firewalls and authentication products are very good, but have very poor marketing and sales. The NSA and Air Force must like them as that's what they use.
The people I knew that worked in the penetration testing were some of the smartest folks I have ever met.
we all know how much these guys follow their charters :)
This press release doesn't seem consistent with the announcement at http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/fluke /html/linux.html. That web page indicates that the NSA is developing a secure Linux system with a flexible security architecture for public release.
They've probably already GOT ultra-secure versions of OpenBSD for PC-based, single-processor servers, but Linux isn't just for PC's or just for one processor.
OpenBSD branched from NetBSD and therefore it has been ported to a great number of hardware platforms (and could be ported easily to many more). See http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html for a list.
I'm not sure if OpenBSD (or NetBSD, for that matter) is multiprocessor enabled. But FreeBSD is, and AFAIK it's far more efficient than Linux handling several processors.
No wonder there was all the secrecy swirling about Transmeta. Linus was actually hired by the NSA to develop a "secure Linux" (*cough*hack*gasp*). Maybe it's time to take another look at BSD?
A little background.
I've been consulting, installing, and using Secure Computing's Sidewinder firewall for about 3.5 years now, which includes the "Patented Type Enforcement Technology". Here's the skinny..
Type enforcement was developed by Secure Computing to be run on a Motorola mini computer system for the NSA about 10-15 years ago. This was specificly designed to be a system to hold both classified and non-classified information, with both classified and non-classified users.
What type enforcement does is create a series of domains within the context of the operating system. Each file and user is assigned to a domain, or a series of domains, and cannot pass domain boundaries, unless explicitly allowed. Attempting to cross boundaries will result in the offending application being killed by the system kernel, the attempted logged, and alarms rung.
The important thing here is that the domain permissions and rules are set in the kernel itself, and changing those rules requires a recompile. I know that Secure Computing was working on a 'type enforcement lite', where the rules were enforced by a userspace daemon, but I hadn't seen anything about that for quite awhile.
Sidewinder is a damned effective firewall, due to the type enforcement. Even if someone breaks a proxy or service running on the outside of the firewall, you still haven't breached the firewall, since there is no logical path to the inside domains or the internal ethernet card, except through a series of named pipes between dual IP stacks (one for the 'outside' and one for the 'inside'). Breaking through those is extremely non-trivial, since every time you touch the wrong domain, you get kicked and logged.
Type enforcement is real, and it's been around for a very long time. And works very well.
jf
I am in the process of implementing this for linux right now... I was working from the 1996 TIS
papers on "DTE" (domain and type enforcement), and saw (well, noticed) no mentions of patents.
I don't know what you mean by a loophole. I can contract you to make for me a "work for hire". You may only distribute that work to me. Copyright for the work (i.e the .diff files) resides with me. An external license like the GPL does not restrict us from contracting this way.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
at this url:
(Hope that someone reads down far enough to moderate this up). The site has a good explanation of what DTE is, but I don't know how active they are.
They have a patch against 2.2.13, which was created on Dec 13 1999. So its not too out of date, though it wil have to be forward ported to 2.3 I suppose...
Maybe the NSA should be spending their money elsewhere - or maybe they should clue up to what open source is all about.
I wonder what is covered by the patent Secure are so proud of?
If the NSA wants TEed BSD, they already can get it from Secure Computing. Secure's Sidewinder and SecureZone firewall are hardened versions of BSDi. Very groovy, by the bye, at least Sidewinder is. Ergo, they have a BSD. They want Linux. Probably because someone Up There thinks Linux is the cat's pajamas. Prognosticating the future since the end of the First Galactic Empire, -Hari
Call me paranoid, but consider the following... The NSA commissions Secure Computing to make a high-security linux distribution, and SC returns only gthe binaries to the NSA, not requiring the release of the source (via the internal changes clause in the GPL). Now there's an official NSA-sanctioned "secure" linux, and all of a sudden everyone who carse about security is using it. Doesn't sound so bad... But what if the NSA has a back door put in? If there's no source, then the only people that know it's there are the NSA themselves, and SC, who I'm sure will be forced to sign an NDA of some sort. I know it sounds paranoid, but this could be viewed as just another provision for "National Security"...
oops - messed it up last time! Doh!
at this url: http://research-cistw.saic.com/cace/dte.html
(Hope that someone reads down far enough to moderate this up). The site has a good explanation of what DTE is, but I don't know how active they are.
They have a patch against 2.2.13, which was created on Dec 13 1999. So its not too out of date, though it will have to be forward ported to 2.3 I suppose...
Maybe the NSA should be spending their money elsewhere - or maybe they should clue up to what open source is all about.
I wonder what is covered by the patent Secure are so proud of?
About the National Security Agency
NEWS FLASH:
"TEXAS: The Open Source community is mourning two of it's most important members today, Linus Torvalds, originator of the Linux computer operating system, was killed when he accidentally, brutaly stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving; and Alan Cox, the guy who REALLY does the programming for the Linux operating system kernel, was killed when he acidentally, brutally cut his head off while combing his hair. Texas Authorities denied any suspicions of foul play, saying that the fact that the two were found hundreds of miles away from their homes and places of work, and the fact that they were discovered face down, with burlap sacks over their faces, was merely a co-incidence."
Heh. If Secure doesn't screw it up, it'll be fine. Secure's Sidewinder system is pretty damn tight. Only as good as its admins, of course, but it works terribly well.
-Hari, who knows way the hell too much about firewalls.
The scenario, I imagine, would go something like this:
- GPL v2 is declared invalid
- The top guns at the FSF draft a new GPL in line with the legal opinion, and true to the spirit of the previous version
- Release GPL v3
- Free-software maintainers the world over update the COPYING file in their tarballs, using the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" provision, or in the worse case, after checking with everyone in AUTHORS
So it would certainly cause a lot of hubbub (gnu.misc.discuss and debian-legal would go berzerk, that's for sure), but in the end, people will just patch the bug, and get on with business as usual. And the new GPL will be that much harder against future legal challenges.iSKUNK!
Secure Computing:
In the early 1970s the National Security Agency engaged a division of Honeywell's Air Space Defense Group to build what became the first firewall. From that beginning, the company spun off from Honeywell as a stand-alone organization in 1989, moved into the commercial firewall space in 1992,and went public in 1995.
Secure Computing's history
NSA:
"The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications--a capability in which the United States leads the world --gives our nation a unique advantage."
--NSA Mission Statement.
China:
"As a country, you really have to be in control of your own destiny," Keller says. "They don't want a sole source situation, especially when that sole source is coming from another country.They want to localize the product. And of course, there are issues of security. If you don't have control of the source code,there are security issues to be concerned about. It's a very important decision for them. Linux allows them the freedom to address all those issues."
Upside article on Red Flag Linux
Does anybody make any non-tech assosciations? It can't be this obvious right?
I mean, while everyone's talking why not bsd, how this is good or bad, contracts, business, bla bla bla........IS EVERYONE BLIND OR SOMETHING....or maybe it's just so obvious, that there's no way it could be......but i can ***guarantee*** that in the event of a real national security threat (like china bombing taiwan--as oppossed to ouzama bin laden), the NSA **will** be in charge.......the NSA is the guarantor of the US's existence. Whether conspiratorial or not, the effect is the same. These people live to destroy any real or perceived threat to national security, even if that threat takes the shape of a global community of programmers. This is about control, and both China and the NSA are steering in their own directions.
Also, not to start a war ... It may be that they have concluded that Linux development is likely to be more robust and diverse. BSD code is still not exactly public property. While it is in the BSD form, it is public. But future derivities are not guarenteed to be public as well. A small matter, perhaps. But it does mean that I, personally, will not contribute to a BSD project knowing that I could just end up contributing to Microsoft rather than to Civilization as we know it. Or at least to how we wish it to be. BTW, there are already word floating about that it has already happened and W2000 contains hunks of BSD code. could just be a roumor but ...
Most clueful Government contractors do not work this way. From reading the site I'm sure Secure Computing does not have this arangement. Whats more likely is that they charge the NSA to develop software, but when the deal is done, both Secure Computing and the NSA will have rights to the source code. Under normal government contracting the NSA could then take that code to another contractor or fork it themselves. This only happens when the customer gets really, really, pissed at you but needs the software. As Secure Computing develops future versions of this linux, the NSA will probably have to pay again for support and updates. Overall this works well with the GPL. The only thing the GPL does in this case is reinforce the NSA's ability to fork or hire someone else to do the job. Neither of which are likely. It does not force source code release to the public, it only gives more rights to people who paid for programs.
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Most clueful Government contractors do not work this way. From reading the site I'm sure Secure Computing does not have this arangement.
Whats more likely is that they charge the NSA to develop software, but when the deal is done, both Secure Computing and the NSA will have rights to the source code. Under normal government contracting the NSA could then take that code to another contractor or fork it themselves. This only happens when the customer gets really, really, pissed at you but needs the software.
As Secure Computing develops future versions of this linux, the NSA will probably have to pay again for support and updates. Overall this works well with the GPL. The only thing the GPL does in this case is reinforce the NSA's ability to fork or hire someone else to do the job. Neither of which are likely. It does not force source code release to the public, it only gives more rights to people who paid for programs.
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Others have pointed out that an insider could simply sell/distribute the NSA Linux, and that the NSA wouldn't be able to do much about its further distribution.
But, if they keep the source code in a very secure place, and separate from most of their computers (which would only contain the binaries), then anyone who tried to disseminate the binaries could be sued by the NSA (since they have the copyright on their "derivative work") over GPL violations.
The NSA would simply claim that the GPL prohibits distribution of the binaries without the source code, and before anyone got the chance to reverse engineer the binaries, the NSA'd prosecute anybody caught distributing said binaries for software piracy.
Kind of a disgusting loophole... if anybody could come up with any passage from the GPL (or copyright law) that contradicts this, I'd sleep much better tonight!
-Hypr Geeque
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Linux will never reach C2 security, that requires every kernel object be secured with ACLs and issue security audit alarms on both success and failed opens. It also requires the capacity to use alternate identification mechanisms like biometrics or smart cards as opposed to just username/password. The POSIX APIs have no means to accopmlish either of these goals since it is resitricted to username/password and UGO security flags. The only reason NT made C2 is because they planned it that way from the beginning.
Similarly, no operating system that offers standards-conforming mail, news, web, ftp, netbios (or lan manager), dhcp, ldap, rpc or pptp will ever qualify for C2 because none of those meet C2 authentication requirements.
C2 is the highest rating a commercial operating system can get, higher ratings can only be internally developed within the government (or by government contractors) and cannot be kept online.
Just some corroborating evidence. . .
The article mentioned several times Secure Computing's Patent on their "Type Enforcement" technology. I see no indication that anything they are doing will be released back to the community.
Sorry, couldn't resist. You meant to spell 'coma' I assume.
The NSA may be able to pay the contracting company enough money that they won't want to distribute the code, but if they do distribute, the NSA doesn't have recourse to retaliate under the GPL, since the GPL forbids a more restrictive liscense from being imposed on GPLed code or code linked against GPLed code. It's probably irrelevent, though, since the NSA can always resort to national-security concerns and trample the people's rights that way. It's worked in the past.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
With all the OpenBSD vs. Linux talk going on - I thought I'd mention that the Sidewinder firewall that currently runs Secure's Type Enforcement is based on BSDi.
Not sure if that clears the waters or muddies them. The *BSD's and BSDi are all siblings, so doing an OpenBSD version should be relatively simple in comparison with Linux. However, if the NSA wanted a BSD derived version, they probably would have just bought Sidewinder (with the appropriate NSA "improvements").
They must be up to something.
Interesting...
The GPL prohibits the use of code-obfuscation programs, but that doesn't mean they have to make their code particularly friendly to read, either. Maybe they have something really really subtle in mind. Or maybe they're actually sincere. Remember, this version is for THEIR networks, and they'd be insane to compromise those.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
National security or not, if what you say does happen then it violates the 5th amendment's guarantee of compensation for government takings and which doesn't make an exception for national security. It ought to be easy enough for the government to compensate owners for their intellectual property without necessarily explaining how the intellectual property is being used or even which property is used.
I have some idealism in me yet. Wait, I can feel it draining away; slowly, slowly, done. Ah, cynicism, my dear friend, we meet again. How're the wife and kids? Mine'll all die, I see that now, even the ones I don't have yet. Personal rights and liberties? No, this is government work. Constitutions as a means of restraining government which by its very nature is unrestrainable? Justice Marshall got it wrong, I see that now. I can see a lot now. I think I hear a knock at my door. Ah, two young men in blue hats. They want to talk to me. I'll be back soon.
NO CARRIER
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
There is another ongoing NSA Secure Linux project. It is being done by the Computer Security Research Division at NSA. They are attempting to port the Flask Security Architecture to Linux. Flask is a policy-flexible OS security architecture.
Their Secure Linux project page is available.
Linux is from everywhere, so I don't see how this makes any sense at all. Unless the US has really got it in for Canada specifically.
The press release brags about "Secure Computing's patented Type Enforcement technology". Clearly, to make this work they need to put their type enforcement stuff in the kernel. However, the GPL in Clause 7 specifically states
This means that Secure Computing must grant a royalty-free license to all direct or indirect recipients to use their patented technologies in Linux kernels. Other clauses of the GPL forbid them from restricting redistribution. So are they giving up hope of making money on their patent? Do they know this?
"If you change stuff and give out your changed binaries, you also have to out the source, and you also have to GPL your modifications."
Nowhere, nowhere in the GPL does it say, "If you change stuff, you are forced to distribute your modifications."
Is that clear, once and for all? Or are we destined forevermore, that whenever the possibility that someone might change GPL'd stuff arises, the majority of idiots start saying "but they'd have to give out their changes?!"
No, they wouldn't. If they kept it internal, nothing forces them to distribute source, GPL'd or otherwise.
I dont even USE GNU/Linux or any Open Source software and I can understand. What's so hard???
Since Secure Computing's technology is patented, I seriously doubt they intend to release the source of their distribution to the world at large. I'm no legal expert by any stretch, but won't this be a direct challenge to the legality of the GPL?
Education to the contrary is welcome, but no flames, please.
The New Yorker magazine, in an article about the NSA, quoted a senior military officer posted to the NSA who described the civilian bureaucracy there as a "self-licking ice cream cone."
Can you prove they haven't? Nor can I. Or anyone else.
That depends on how strong you need that proof. Echelon is NOT a theory, it is documented fact. Part of that fact is the exchange of intelligence where foreign agencies tell NSA what they know about U.S. citizens, and the NSA returns the favor for their citizens.
Further, their refusal to cooperate with congress is at least probable cause.
As for the NSA and the venusians using genetically engineered sasquatch to read the minds of anyone wearing tinfoil by order of the trilateral committee, that is just an unsubstantiated rumour.[/humor]
An A1 rating of a high-rated system is worth reading. This gives you an idea of what it takes to get it right. At the lower levels, it's easier; Microsoft NT 4.0 with service pack 6A plus a "C2 hotfix set" finally got a C2 rating (the lowest offered), after years of failed attempts. Microsoft had to use the new "outside evaluator" system to do it, rather than having NSA itself do the evaluation. The difference is that NSA only gives you two tries to pass. You can pay an outside evaluator to let you try again and again. NSA allows this at the lowest security level to encourage vendors to try to meet the minimal C2 requirements.
It makes a lot of sense for NSA to fund an effort based on Linux; they'll get something they can run on popular hardware. But some major kernel changes will be needed to get into the B levels. (NSA never had much interest in C-level systems.)
I've been out of that world for a long time now, but from 1978 to 1982 I worked on KSOS, an early NSA-funded attempt to build a secure UNIX-like OS. The original design was done at SRI International, and we at Ford Aerospace implemented it. It eventually worked, but was too slow. It was for PDP-11 machines (0.5 MIPS, 64K address space per process), and was implemented in Modula I, since C was considered unsafe even back then. The combination of an inefficient Modula compiler and a small address space ruined the thing; we had to cut out speed optimizations to make it fit. This was one of the first systems designed against the Orange Book criteria, which, incidentally, started life as Grace Nibaldi's master's thesis.
BSD Unix, incidentally, was viewed as hopeless from a DoD security standpoint. The kernel was far too complicated. A rewrite in Ada was considered in the early 1980s, but rejected. The DoD view at the time was that BSD was a dead end, and Mach was the future. They wanted something at least as secure as Multics, which was a system from the late 1960s rated at B2 in 1985. But that's another story.
$ su - root /usr/src/linux
password:
# cd
# grep NSAKEY *.c *.h
ACCESS DENIED
# crap
bash: crap: command not found
giggle
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Perhaps this is the NSA starting in a new direction. Despite all the X-Files I watch, I have to believe that the NSA is working in the best interests of the American people. For a long time that ment monitering for say, suspicous bhabviour. ie. terrorist activities. Maybe with crytography the way it is, that is too difficuly and no longer their primary focus. Could they instead be working to safeguard American businesses by making sure that faulty standards are not being used?
Just a thought.
Regards,
KeyLargo.
Secure Computing's patented Type Enforcement technology. . . Implementing Type Enforcement within the operation system itself assures the highest level of security available in commercial operating systems. Here is the paragraph it is taken out of. Secure Computing's patented Type Enforcement technology provides network security protection that is unique to the industry. This technology, first developed under previous government contracts, is available today as part of the UNIX OS for Secure Computing's Sidewinder[tm] firewall. Type Enforcement secures underlying operating systems and protects applications and network services, by segmenting them into domains. Each domain is granted permission to access only specific file types, including executables. As such, each domain provides a self-contained, discrete layer of protection that cannot be altered. Implementing Type Enforcement within the operating system itself assures the highest level of security available in commercial operating systems.
The interesting question, to me, is whether the NSA gan give its employees copies and still bar them from taking the copies home. (Removing anything machine-readable from Ft. Meade is, in general, streng verboten.)
The GPL can't bar "don't make your employer unhappy" pressure, but are they permitted to stop someone who wants to try?
The patentedness of the relevant technology also becomes an issue. The GPL is rather clearer on those grounds.
Secure Computing had done a lot of work with BSDI. They also contributed fixes and modifications back to the BSD tree.
In fact, they have an employee credited in The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System book.
It is unlikely that Secure Computing will contribute the final code that they deliver to the NSA to the public, but the additional eyes on the kernel source can only be a good thing. As a bonus, any tools they need developed by other opensource companies like Cygnus would be released by Cygnus to the community.
Welcome the folks new to the "bandwagon"...
Ron
RonSpace
"The club cannot (under GPL) restrict anyone from doing so."
Not quite. NSA employees are bound by secrecy laws and most certainly will be prosecuted for revealing secrets. Modified Linux would be one of them.
Outside the govt/military sphere, employees can be sued for disclosing their employers secrets. Unless the company authorizes publication, it can fire and sue people.
-- Robert
This is myself.
I'm me, the other is he.
I != He
He's comment was funny, you are a real troll, and a boaring one.
The SpookOS
"We'll give you the source, but we'll have to kill you."
Well? ::)
--computerboy
Basicly, they've already done this very thing to OpenBSD - Sidewinder firewall. Lotsa military bases use it. It's based on OpenBSD.
I've used OpenBSD, and I have found linux much easier to use. While for a company, you would just hire some guy who already knows the system, here you have to train them on it (or contract a civilian, who can't be deployed during contengency). So you have to use systems you can train people on easily, because (in the air force at least) an airman is only on station for between one to three years, and may change jobs two or three times during that period. I'd rather train them linux than OpenBSD, just 'cause non-geek airmen will probably understand it better.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
NSA Public License (NSAPL) v1.0... We could give you the source, but then we'd have to kill you.
Does anyone know enough about HURD to tell if it is made well for security? It sort of sounds like it would be an interesting alternative if linux didn't work out.
Was just curious about the NetBSD thing. I do know he can be rather brusque at times on the mailing lists, but shrug :) He doesn't pretend the system is for newbies/cluebies/doesn't have time for people asking FAQ'ed questions.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
No Such Operating System.. we don't have an os, what are you talking about? Go back to bed, America.
This is the NSA, you think it'll be on sale at Best Buy? Anyway,even if it was, nobody's twisting your arm to use it.
Doubtful. If they really want to keep this tight, they won't charge you with software piracy. Under US code Title 18, section 3592(B) they can put someone to death for treason(espionage in this case). According to this title, there are many factors determining appropriateness of death sentence. I would doubt that they would ever complete this sentence but intentionaly passing out the source code to something like this could definitely be cause for a stiff jail sentence.
Sleep well knowing they have that power...
ps: IANAL, but I play one in law class.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Tell me as soon as you find the iso
This sounds problematic. From what I can make out they claim that they have patented technology which they are going to add to the Linux kernel. Since the Linux kernel is released under the GPL, and the GPL asserts that patents which are used in GPLed software have to be licensed to everybody this is going to cause problems, unless they release their stuff as binary only kernel modules. Am I understanding this correctly ? Is it time to get out the big GUNS and threaten with lawsuits ? Some Linux people now have lots of money, so the threat of this sort might now actually carry some weight..
So, why are you wondering ? Russia military forses did that years before. Stripped down RH4.2 with most services thrown off and others are disabled, self-made kernel audit, gcc and devt libs/headers available only after additional request, whole distro is 7 1.44 floppies - and they call is MSVS. Works quite stable on their hardware (486 in enhanced security case (locks on everything, EM shield, special cabling)). Developers for this system are cryind in desperate :).
Solipsistic sig file. Neat. Give my regards to Elson Roa, and don't forget "Aim Here!".
-- "This is the Space Age, and we are Here To Go" - W.S.Burroughs
ermmm.. actually a lot of Win software did use to have the "Regents of California" coyright statement. Eg ftp on older WinXX installs would print it out when you started it. (code had to actually print it out to the user - nothing to do with code comments)
..." in WinXX today. But still that code is BSD based - eg the WinXX tcp/ip stack was developed from BSD. A lot of the utilities (ftp, traceroute, etc.) are BSD based.. etc..
However the "must display copyright" clause was removed from the BSD licence about a year or 3 ago. I believe it was RMS that persuaded them. Hence the reason why you can't find "Regents
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
If there were to release their modifications back into the open-source community, could it be with the purpose of making linux more secure against everybody else, but leaving opening up the typical NSA backdoor for themselves.
We wouldn't allow a known theif to replace the locks on your doors with their own self-created brand.
Another subject that tackles my mind, is the possibility that software companies opposed to linux could have plants working on projects vital to the future success of linux, ready to strike with damaging code that hits the news/media big time and making potential newcomers shy away.
But thats my paranoid side.
There's _already_ a project that's most of the way to B-level functionality. It's at http://www.rsbac.de/ and it already works.
I think we should question the use of our tax dollars to reinvent this wheel when there's an active *FREE* implementation already most of the way done that doesn't use patented technology.
Paul
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
Type enforcement sounds like a killer app for Linux. Just imagine doing your casual IRCing and then some D00dz starts scanning your ports and launching DoS attacks against your machine. But now with the latest kernel you can remotely shut down their computer, ring several alarms in their house while flashing red lightbulbs. Not to mention a couple of dark dressed NSA gays knocking their door down a few minutes later. This would work wonders against silly script kiddies on IRC.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Their job is to hunt down government contracts and get them.
I would guess that SAIC probably competed against Secure Computing to get the contract. Obviously, if they did, they lost.
My possibly true assumption : SAIC bid, possibly using their own tool as evidence of their prowess. For whatever reason, the NSA *still* passed them up on the deal.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I don't have a copy of the GPL to hand, but I think the wording and intent is that free licenses to use the patented technology must be distributed along with the GPL'd software and source code.
That is to say, if some patented technique is incorporated into YetAnotherLinux, then anyone who recieves a copy of YetAnotherLinux is automatically licensed to use the patented technology and redistribute it under the GPL.
Therefore I don't think this is a particularly great cause for concern - though some components may be patented, the company that incorporated them into the kernel in the first place has effectively given up the rights over the patent in the GPL domain.
Pretty clever contract, that GPL.....
I work SAIC and was unaware of that patch. Thanks, and somebody moderate this thing up! ;)
True, it is certified. But anyone interested should check the specs. Only on the Compaq Workstation and Server platform tested. And without IIS or other web server on the server side. No browser on the client, etc...
If you really, really wanted to provide NT in a C2 configuration, you could, but not without considerable effort, and at that the config would have severely limited functionality.
Sorry. Linux /proc filesystem is not like OpenBSD /proc filesystem and emulation is not provided yet. You cannot run the Linux StarOffice on OpenBSD because of this. I think you might be able to run the ix86 Solaris StarOffice though.
...but you can't have one. it's the forbidden machine
Secure Computing Corporation
Type Enforced Linux / NSA Press Release
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: What are you announcing today?
Today we are announcing a sole source contract award from the National Security Agency, to Secure Computing's Advanced Technology Division to apply Secure's patented Type Enforcement technology, to the Linux operating system
Question 2: Why is this announcement important? Who needs these solutions?
This announcement is important because it supports our position that Secure Computing's technology provides security functionality unequalled in industry. The National Security Agency has had a longstanding reputation as being one of the most stringent information security customers in the world. The fact that they came to Secure Computing to provide this capability demonstrates their recognition of our capabilities.
Secure Computing believes that a primary measure that corporations can take to enhance their security, is to move critical applications onto operating systems that are not susceptible to attack. With the recent emergence of Linux, and its phenomenal growth rate, developing a secure Linux operating system, for customer applications, as well as our own security products, is a logical step. In addition to the DoD, we envision that our target customers, the medium to high-end corporations, will see the benefit of this activity.
In short, we believe that the market has "voted" and Linux is rapidly becoming a standard platform for the enterprise and for e-commerce and e-business. We undertook this work because we are committed to Linux and are currently porting our applications to the Linux platform.
Question 3: Why are you announcing this now?
We have just recently been awarded the development contract for this effort, so we are releasing the information.
Question 4: How does this change your existing security products and services?
We believe that the market has "voted" and Linux is rapidly becoming a standard platform for the enterprise and for e-commerce and e-business. We undertook this work because we are committed to Linux and are currently porting our applications to the Linux platform.
Question 5: Why did you enter into this Contract?
Secure Computing Corporation has a longstanding relationship with the NSA and several other agencies within the DoD. Sidewinder is currently the #1 Firewall in the DoD, and our Advanced Technology Division achieves almost 100% of their revenue from government contracts. Entering into this contract continues a very strong relationship, with some of the most advanced, security conscious customers in the world. Additionally, we undertook this work because we recognized the need for our products to be available on a secure version Linux. This is a win for both our Customer, the NSA and for ourselves, allowing us to leverage the NSA work to provide a foundation for future product directions.
Question 6: Can you provide a brief description of Type Enforcement, and the benefits it provides to the underlying operating system?
Type Enforcement is a mandatory access control mechanism that is tailored to provide the strength and flexibility required in today's business to business e-commerce environments. The strength comes from locating the Type Enforcement mechanisms in the lowest level of the OS kernel, thus ensuring that a clever attacker cannot bypass them. This also enables the Type Enforcement mechanism to protect all the applications and higher level operating system components on the system. At Secure Computing Corporation, we use Type Enforcement to protect the integrity of our Application Layer Gateway firewalls. The flexibility comes from separating the policy definition engine from the enforcement mechanisms. Thus, organizations and system vendors can develop Type Enforcement policy engines that are tuned to provide the security that they need, rather than being forced to accept a "one size fits all" form of security.
A Type Enforced system resembles a honeycomb, with each critical system component placed in its own separate cell, in which it can access only the resources and utilize the privileges it needs to perform its function. A security breach that affects one component does not affect components in other cells. Type Enforcement controls the harmful effects of security flaws in applications, including configuration errors by administrators.
The CERT Coordination Center Security Advisories are packed with examples of attacks that take advantage of an application flaw to attack a system. The recent successful attack against PC Week's Apache/Linux challenge system would have failed if the underlying Linux system had been Type Enforced.
Question 7: Is there a revenue impact to this announcement?
Yes, however, we have not entered into this contract merely for the contract revenue. As we have stated before, federal contracting offers us the opportunity to conduct R&D on new technologies and product, without additional company investment. So although this contract will produce in excess of 7 figures for ATD contract revenue, this was not the driving force.
Question 8: What are you contributing to the market with this announcement?
We believe this contract and announcement furthers our claim that Secure Computing provides security technology that is unequaled in this space.
Question 9: What are your plan regarding the Open Source nature of Linux?
It is our intention to be an active, responsible member of the open source community. Within the constraints this imposes, we will work with partners to develop new product offerings that will benefit our customers, our partners, and us. However, we will also benefit simply by having a Linux based secure operating system on which to host our products.
Our modifications to Linux will consist of:
- strong policy enforcement code which is in the kernel itself, - a flexible policy engine which is structured as a separate module We will open source all the modifications to the kernel as well as a general-purpose policy engine. We have not determined the exact functionality of this engine, but it will support a broad set of basic applications and it will be complete enough too teach the community how to write other policy engines. We hope that others will choose to enhance this engine and/or develop their own policy engines that are optimized for their purposes. We will keep the policy engines for our products, such as the Sidewinder policy engine, proprietary.
----
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My