Slashdot Mirror


IBM Clinches Security Certification for Linux

Nimey writes "IBM has gotten Linux certified under the Common Criteria specification. " What this means is that government can consider Linux when making purchasing decisions. Linux got the highest rating possible.

16 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Just wondering.. by CausticWindow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What are the ratings and how does other common OS's score? Anybody know?

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:Just wondering.. by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I found this link which has more details, looks like it is EAL2 after all. I also found that Red Hat and Oracle are planning on going after EAL4 for the latest RHAS so the W2K advantage might be short lived.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  2. Cool ;-) IBM forked over the few milllion.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, you really cant go wrong with a open source, GPL'ed operating system where drivers are wrote by guys from NASA (Thanks Mr. Becker), and your security ACL's are wrote by the Spooks (heh, thanks NoSuchAgency ;-).

    It REALLY beats closed source OS'es (for govt's) as even our own MS of America wont let us see the code because it's "dangerous". However showing the Chinese is A-OK.

    Gotta makes you think: what would our gov't choose if they didnt have their hand in MS'es pocket?

    --
  3. Red Hat / Oracle by jmkaza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to this article, Red Hat and Oracle are working on gaining the same level of certification by the end of the year.

  4. It must really be secure then... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, look at all the other level 4 assurance level OSs here . Of course, Windows 2k has had this certification since last year AND Microsoft has prepared a nice guide for ensuring compliance to the common criteria guides for the Windows Sysadmin. I'm very glad that Linux will be able to compete with Windows on a bureaucratic level as well as on technical merit, but perhaps there is a slight overreacction from the part of the /. editors?

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  5. Linux in Government by Sogol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a sysadmin for a large government data center. We've been using Linux in production for years, and we always purchase boxed distributions, even some preconfigured(!) machines from Dell. Government regulations do, however, prevent me from ordering Windex and Duster. These are considered janitorial supplies, and there is no justification in Information Systems procuring these items. So frankly, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Things look a lot different on the ground.

  6. Re:Thank you IBM by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Glad to see they aren't letting SCO scare them away from giving Linux their support time after time

    Did you seriously think that they would? If so you need to share some of the dope you've been smoking. As has been said numerous times on this board: to IBM, SCO is nothing more than an annoying mosquito. They might be carrying West Nile, but they are still just a mosquito, and can be crushed or captured almost any time.

    The cool part about this whole article is that with the security cert, the government could begin switching some of their offices over. It also means that organizations like hospitals (who need to be concerned with privacy due to HIPAA) can be sold on the fact that it is secure and they don't have to worry as much about some hacker stealing confidential information.

    Think about it.
    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  7. Re:Can vs. Will by sporty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, look at it this way. If you couldn't, trying would be futile. Sorta like trying to get water/blood from a stone. But, with linux certified, saying that you will not even have one supporter of linux in gov't just got a little unreasonable.

    You have big corps like IBM, HP and Dell saying, "it's ok."
    You have many countries saying "It's ok, see?"
    You have the US (via certification) saying "it's ok."

    Seems more unreasonable to say it will never happen every other day.

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  8. Re:Can vs. Will by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well IBM is a force to be reckoned with as well. In some ways a little more then Microsoft. Especially in New York State, where almost all the agencies use IBM products. But it was IBM who brought Microsoft into the mainstream. And they can probably bring Linux into the mainstream. It will not be an overnight adoption but a gradual one.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Are there any secure Os's out there? by sirrube · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Linux only got Low2Moderate - and Windows2k got Moderate2High. Are there any off the shelf OS's that rank equal or better to win2k or is Windows2k the only one out there? Thinking of all the security breaches in Windows2k a Low2Moderate score does not impress me nor does Microsoft when it comes to Security.

  10. Re:Can vs. Will by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because the government can consider buying Linux, doesn't mean it will.

    Correct. And it's true that no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

    But much of the Linux deployment in government up to this point has been precisely because it can be had for no official government expenditure. It's always harder to get money for projects than it is to get money to keep your existing people. Those people have been doing some testing of Linux.

    Shoestring Linux projects have proven themselves to be not only cost-effective, but generally reliable and useful.

    Given that prototype testing already in place, authorizing incremental purchases to add on to that base of Linux functionality is an easier decision than if were made cold, without any evidence to support.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  11. Highest Rating Possible is misleading! by sh4d0wb0x3r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Linux received it's evaluation at a level of EAL2; according to the CC guidelines, this is "structurally tested" and means that it should "not demand more effort on the part of the developer that is consistent with good commercial practice"; applicable where "a low to moderate level of independently assured security" is required.
    Windows 2K received an EAL4+, according to NIAP's evaluated product list; which is *supposed* to show it was "methodically designed, tested, and reviewed". This is probably about on par with the old Orange Book (TCSEC) C3 it used to have. EAL4 does "not require substantial specialist knowledge" and is the "highest level in which it is likely to be economically feasible to retrofit in an existing product line." It's intended that an EAL4 system shows "low-level design for the Target of Evaluation (ToE)"; with testing that supports "independent search for obvious vulnerabilities."
    That being said, having an EAL2 or EAL4 will probably not get you into a job that involves holding classified data.
    All of this is accessible from , the CC website.

  12. Re:Thank you IBM by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Government security certification is a long process with much paperwork. I'm not sure about these certification levels, but they used to take your hardware/software and test it. If it didn't pass, all you were told was that failed, not why. Fun fun fun! I was rolling on floor when Microsoft claimed that NT had passed B2. The slightest change/patches and you had to start all over again. :^)

    IBM probably started the process years ago. Note that it's only the IBM/SuSE distro that's certified (I'm guessing). Other companies should probably look into it. The article doesn't say how much it cost IBM, but I bet it wasn't cheap!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. Government requiring LSB distribution too! by isn't+my+name · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think what this means is that they can pick Linux and have a piece of paper supporting their choice. Got to cover their own backs I guess.

    Better still the Defense Information Systems Agency is recommending that any Linux purchase support the LSB and that apps be written to the LSB.

    So, not only is it now easier for government agencies to support Linux deployments, but they are going to force any Linux distributor doing business with the government into interoperability.

  14. Re:Can vs. Will by Nucleon500 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Correct. And it's true that no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

    Nope.

  15. You need to know the CC to know what this means. by ibex42 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    These articles all are very vague and do not provide nearly enough information to allow anyone to form a reasonable opinion. First, EAL2 is no where near the highest level of evaluation. More importantly, even if it was evaluated to EAL7, we have no idea what that means without looking at the protection profile (PP). The PP defines the features that are looked at for the evaluation. Without knowing the PP, they could be evaluationing Linux or any OS only for it's ability to control access with a username and password. So in theory, that could mean that once a username and password are provided, the user has unlimited access to all files on the system. As long as that feature is documented, mathematically modeled, and tested correctly it could get a high EAL rating.


    The biggest thing to remember about the CC is that the level rating is relatively meaningless without considering the protection profile. The problem is vendors don't readily tell you the protection profile they use.