My recommendation is DAEMON Tools. It is a quick and dirty freeware solution which has proven rock solid on my systems. It mounts ISO and a variety of other CD image file types as lettered drives. It's really built for use on a workstation but once the drives are mounted they can be shared like any other normal drive. (Tools to create CD images are not included.)
Virtual Drive (Network Edition) is commercial software and comes in a variety of languages. It has a prettier interface and includes CD management tools (ISO creation). Personally it didn't impress me but YMMV.
They gots the mad scylds.. Scyld is a highly regarded vendor in the Beowulf field. They host the beowulf maillist (beowulf.org), offer technical certifications and work with the open source community. They are all that and a can of Moxy.
Scyld is a software company so they don't sell directly. To get a turnkey system they have partnered with hardware vendors who will sell a pre-integrated cluster along with hardware support and Scyld support for the integrated Beowulf Professional Edition software. Visit their site at:
A long time ago, on a planet very much like our own, there was a sodality of technical types with a need for special desks. For their large pieces of equipment that had to be directly manipulated the desks surface area was made quite large. For immediate viewing of monitors and other feedback devices a monitor riser was added. Specialized rack mount equipment was needed close at hand so small 19" racks were made a part of the desk design. With so much equipment they required specialized wiring and so was added cable management to the desk.
They were Audio Engineers and they were freakishly cool.
They needed desks very similar to what us computer geeks would need. But because they needed a quiet environment to work with sound they made their rackmounts soundproof.
Oh, and because they were as much artists as engineers they made it all look really nice. Check it out:
I submitted this experience with BSA and Microsoft to Slashdot last October but never heard back:
On Halloween I received a letter from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) which
at first blush appears to accuse my company of using unlicensed software.
They do not specify that the company is under investigation but say BSA is
"cracking down on organizations in the {city} area that use unlicensed
software". They go on to say that by registering with them you can take
advantage of a 'Software Truce' and they "will not seek to impose
penalties". This ticked me off quite a bit. After a careful reading I
realized what it was, a scare tactic being snail-mail spammed at
companies in my area.
If that were all that happened then it would not have been an issue.
The next day a brochure arrives from Microsoft, bright yellow with huge
lettering:
(Please choose one.)
A. Big Penalties from the BSA
B. Big Savings from Microsoft
So first they have BSA threaten my company, then they offer to sell me
software?
I am not an Open Source partisan. Most of my business is in dealing with
Microsoft products and I myself hold a number of MS certifications. I am OS
neutral whenever possible but this is making me reconsider that. I can't be
anything but anonymous as I can't afford to get crushed just now. But what
Microsoft is doing here is just wrong.
I am including the full text of the letter the BSA sent below. Following that
letter is the brochure from Microsoft. Items enclosed in curly brackets are
where I have removed identifying information:
Business Software Alliance
www.bsa.org Are you using unlicensed software?
1150 18th Street NW
Suite 700 If so, the Business Software Alliance
Washington, DC 20036 is giving you 30 days to get legal.
October 30, 2000 Your BSA Truce Participation #: {######}
{Company President}
President
{Company Name}
{Street Address}
{City}, {State} {Zip}
Dear {Company President}:
You may have heard that the Business Software Alliance is cracking down on organizations in the
{City} area that use unlicensed software. If your software is not licensed, you could be the
target of a BSA investigation
The BSA -- an association comprised of Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, CNC Software/
Mastercam, Corel, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates and Symantec -- works to educate
the public, and enforce intellectual property rights.
The BSA is calling a Truce. You have one month to get legal.
The BSA is offering a Software Truce in {City} between November 1 and December 1.
Take tins time to review your software installations and usage and, if necessary, acquire the licenses
you need. If your organization becomes fully licensed during the Truce, BSA will not seek to impose
penalties for any unauthorized copying that occurred before December 1 (unless your organization
has been informed it is already under investigation). If you are contacted by the BSA, just show your
Truce Participation Number and software purchase receipts to the BSA, to take advantage of the
Truce. [Please see the reverse for terms.]
Unauthorized copying is the same as stealing. If you're caught, your organization could face penalties
totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. The enclosed document contains -news clips from
organizations that learned their lesson the hard way.
Not sure if you're fully licensed? We can help you find out.
Trying to determine whether your organization is using illegal software? Visit our website at
www.bsatruce.com for more information and to download our free Software Audit tool, or call our
special Truce hotline at l-877-536-4BSA (1-877-536-4272). If you find that you aren't 100%
licensed, contact your software vendor immediately and buy the software licenses you need before the
Truce ends on December 1, 2000.
Sincerely,
Bob Kruger
Vice President
Business Software Alliance
Back of letter:
Truce Participation Terms
The BSA is declaring a 30-day Truce between November 1, 2000 and December 1,2000.
1. For your organization to qualify for the Truce program:
o it must obtain a Participation # either through receipt of a BSA
letter or from the Truce website - www.bsatruce.com;
o its headquarters must be located within the following zipcode:
{City}: {Zip}
o it must not have previously received notice that the BSA or its
members (listed below) have received a report of infringement
and are investigating it; and
o prior to or during the Truce period (November 1, 2000 through
December 1, 2000), it must have acquired sufficient software
licenses to ensure that all software published by BSA members
installed on its computers is properly licensed.
2. After the Truce period ends, if your organization is notified by the BSA or its
members listed below that your organization is under investigation for copyright
infringement, simply produce your Truce Participation # and the dated proofs of
purchase showing that your organization acquired sufficient licenses for its software
installations during or before the Truce period. No penalty will be sought for
infringement that occurred prior to the Truce period.
3. For the purpose of the Truce, BSA members are: Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley,
Corel, CNC/Mastercam, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates and Symantec.
Microsoft Brochure:
The choice is clear
Take control of your business' software assets
and save up to 20%!
The Business Software Alliance -- an
association of leading software developers
-- is cracking down on organizations nation-
wide that use unlicensed software. The
BSA is giving companies that aren't 100%
compliant two choices: get compliant with
copyright law or pay the price.
Take advantage of the BSA's 30-day Truce.
If you're fully licensed, we'd like to commend you for having
a sound software asset management policy in place.
If you're not sure, we encourage you to take part in the
Truce that The BSA is offering during the month of November.
During the Truce, the BSA. will hold off on software investi-
gations. This gives you time to check your software inventory
and if necessary, get the licenses you need before investi-
gations resume on December 1, 2000.
Check your compliance. And save up to
20%! We understand business is hectic. Thats why we've
teamed up with SoftChoice to provide you with a simple way
to double-check your software licenses. Put SoftChoice to
work for you, and here's what you'll get:
1. A free, confidential software consultation.
2. Up to 20% off on Microsoft Windows@ and
Microsoft Office products.
3. Expert advice on how to set up a solid
asset management plan for the future.
So take a proactive approach to protecting your software
assets. Call SoftChoice at 1-877-545-7638 and schedule
your free, confidential software consultation today.
It's the right choice.
Again, IANAL. I have done some work on systems security in federal government agencies including gathering forensic evidence. In that time I realized how little I know and that information technology forensics requires a mixture of technical and procedural knowhow. I am a novice in the procedural field but have managed to learn a little about what is required.
The most important consideration is not technical at all, it's procedural. Someone must decide how important the evidence is and to what lengths its integrity should be guaranteed. Don't let this decision be made by you, unless you are the Security Officer, senior manager or a lawyer. A bad decision is... VERY bad. Are you just looking for evidence for internal abuse detection? Is the data going to be used in a local or federal police investigation? Will it be used to fire someone? Will they sue and demand your evidence in court? All of these decisions indicate different levels of need for maintaining data integrity.
Once someone makes a call on what length to go to you can start touching things appropriately. Here are some rules of thumb I use:
Maintain integrity as appropriate. For a casual investigation about who is playing Doom over the LAN you just need to look for your evidence and copy it to a secure location in case it is needed. For a situation where the evidence will be used in court you should pull the hardrive(s), computer or other evidence and have a lawyer place them in a safe.
Collecting Evidence for Legal Action. Lawyers love paper. Unlike electronic files they are well understood by the law and are usually treated as being immutable. Lawyers like CDROMs. Though electronic documents are in their legal infancy everyone knows that CDs can't be changed (without leaving trace evidence). Lawyers seek control. Give any evidence to them as soon as possible. Courts tend to believe lawyers when they say the evidence was in their hands and has not been changed. (Though it is hard for me to understand why anyone would believe a lawyer about anything.)
Workstations. If your evidence is on a workstation and it will be used in court ask a decision maker about whether to:
1. Seize the computer
2. Collect an sector by sector image of the HD (leaving workstation in place)
3. Copy files to a secure location (leaving workstation in place)
4. Leave everything alone
Just because you can collect evidence in a particular way doesn't mean you should. If you access a machine without explicit authorization to collect evidence you could invalidate any evidence on the system. Even if you are an administrator for the machine and have the permissions required to collect evidence simply accessing the computer for the purpose of collecting information before being told to could be used to invalidate ANY evidence collected after that time.
Servers. Normally these systems shouldn't be seized, brought down or otherwise kept from providing their services to users. But if the need is great enough they will be. To avoid this you have to be able to document how you collect evidence, what you collect and how you maintain its integrity. Write important logs to CD, discuss what is logged, describe who has access to what and when, explain what information is collected for a particular need, specify where and how it is stored and provide a list of actions taken in each instance of evidence collection. By documenting your procedures in advance and your actions during collection any evidence collected using the procedures will make managers and lawyers more confident of its integrity.
Collecting evidence is the one time NOT to be a cowboy. You can be as confident as you like about the evidence, you still need to convince someone else of its veracity.
The best US governmental source for information is the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division of the DOJ:
http://www.cybercrime.gov/
Forensic Technologies- Office of Justice Programs and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services in May 2001
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/186822.htm or
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/186822.pdf
Best Practices For Seizing Electronic Evidence
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/electronic_evidence. ht m
The best resource IMO is the Computer Security Insitute:
http://www.gocsi.org
> I wonder what we would have in the way of tools if people said "Okay,
> EVERYBODY has a GUI". That is, if there was no console mode per se.
> If the first thing that init did was throw you into X instead of the
> last thing.
I can say exactly what we would have: Windows NT.
(This is where the smart people stop reading and go write a terribly
clever Microsoft dig. Us dumb people can continue.)
Yes, NT does have a command line, two actually. CMD.exe is a 32bit
extended DOS shell. command.com is it's 16bit little brother. Are
they as robust as most *nix shells? No, of course not, mainly because
the design philosophy of the two OS's are VERY different. NT is (in
design philosophy) a 32bit VMS offshoot that uses a GUI as the main
interface.
Because NT shells are typically weak programming environments most
serious programming is done via the GUI. This lends itself well to
the object oriented design philosophy behind Windows NT. For simple
tools and tool combinations the shell is still needed. When I need
to manipulate multiple systems across a network for administrative
purposes I find it very easy to write a script for most simple
operations.
Getting back on topic, how does this affect the types of programs
produced that interact between the two? Well, typically there are
two effects:
1. The command line arguments are not as robust.
Normally programs run from the command line will concentrate on
interface related functions. (i.e.: Run minimized, non-interactive
mode, run with the following configuration, location of data files
to be loaded before GUI starts). This is a generalization but it
is the exceptional NT program that takes more than 1 page in a help
file to explain.
2. Tools with GUI's evolve to meet the majority of needs.
This is not to say that the OS manufacturer provides the tools.
For example, Microsoft provides many tools for systems
administration including Event Log Administrator, Server
Administrator, User Manager, etc. A third party tool called Hyena
combines these all into a single interface which can output data to
a script generation tool. Is it as flexible as a series of command
line tools which can interoperate well? No, it isn't. However it
fulfills 95% of my systems administration needs.
There is also a secondary affect that very little work is done toward
new shell creation. *nix has a rich blend of shell environments
developed for it (i.e.: bash, csh, tcsh, etc.). NT has had a very few
(and rather weak) NT specific shells created (i.e.: 4NT, KiX). Many
shells have been ported to NT from *nix but they typically don't
thrive. Why? The file-centric command line shell environments aren't
as effective in NT as the object-centric GUI programming environments.
The end effect? The GUI tools created tend to be very powerful but
lacking the flexibility of command line tools. (IMHO)
I just couldn't believe the naivete of this article.
First, being able to run files in separate memory spaces and as discrete units in no way confers the kind of security NSA must establish. I could see this running on very low security systems (unclassified and classified secret) with strong operational security. But no matter how strong VMWare's virtual machine technology is if data can be written to disk by the VMWare session it could be recovered by another VMWare session on the machine. Just the theoretical possibility of that occuring rules it out of being used for most classified data types.
Second, this 'Professor of Digital Forensics Investigation Fred Cohen' needs to go learn a little about NSA's requirements for C2 security classification. Microsoft MUST provide source code for review to achieve C2. Microsoft has achieved C2 for NT 3.5 and NT4. Therefore the NSA DOES know "what is going on inside NT".
Slashdot Mirror
1. DAEMON Tools (currently v2.88)
2. FarStone Tech's Virtual Drive (currently v6.2)
My recommendation is DAEMON Tools. It is a quick and dirty freeware solution which has proven rock solid on my systems. It mounts ISO and a variety of other CD image file types as lettered drives. It's really built for use on a workstation but once the drives are mounted they can be shared like any other normal drive. (Tools to create CD images are not included.)
Virtual Drive (Network Edition) is commercial software and comes in a variety of languages. It has a prettier interface and includes CD management tools (ISO creation). Personally it didn't impress me but YMMV.
CA*NET 3 - CANARIE's National Optical Internet
Scyld is a software company so they don't sell directly. To get a turnkey system they have partnered with hardware vendors who will sell a pre-integrated cluster along with hardware support and Scyld support for the integrated Beowulf Professional Edition software. Visit their site at:
Scyld Computing Corporation
Or go directly to their partners:
Compaq
PSSC Labs
Penguin Computing
eLinux
Aspen Systems
Custom Fit, Inc.
Atipa
Dan
They were Audio Engineers and they were freakishly cool.
They needed desks very similar to what us computer geeks would need. But because they needed a quiet environment to work with sound they made their rackmounts soundproof.
Oh, and because they were as much artists as engineers they made it all look really nice. Check it out:
http://www.middleatlantic.com/studio/main.htm
Dan
On Halloween I received a letter from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) which at first blush appears to accuse my company of using unlicensed software. They do not specify that the company is under investigation but say BSA is "cracking down on organizations in the {city} area that use unlicensed software". They go on to say that by registering with them you can take advantage of a 'Software Truce' and they "will not seek to impose penalties". This ticked me off quite a bit. After a careful reading I realized what it was, a scare tactic being snail-mail spammed at companies in my area.
If that were all that happened then it would not have been an issue.
The next day a brochure arrives from Microsoft, bright yellow with huge lettering:
(Please choose one.)
A. Big Penalties from the BSA
B. Big Savings from Microsoft
So first they have BSA threaten my company, then they offer to sell me software?
I am not an Open Source partisan. Most of my business is in dealing with Microsoft products and I myself hold a number of MS certifications. I am OS neutral whenever possible but this is making me reconsider that. I can't be anything but anonymous as I can't afford to get crushed just now. But what Microsoft is doing here is just wrong.
I am including the full text of the letter the BSA sent below. Following that letter is the brochure from Microsoft. Items enclosed in curly brackets are where I have removed identifying information:
Business Software Alliance
www.bsa.org Are you using unlicensed software?
1150 18th Street NW
Suite 700 If so, the Business Software Alliance
Washington, DC 20036 is giving you 30 days to get legal.
October 30, 2000 Your BSA Truce Participation #: {######}
{Company President}
President
{Company Name}
{Street Address}
{City}, {State} {Zip}
Dear {Company President}:
You may have heard that the Business Software Alliance is cracking down on organizations in the
{City} area that use unlicensed software. If your software is not licensed, you could be the
target of a BSA investigation
The BSA -- an association comprised of Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, CNC Software/
Mastercam, Corel, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates and Symantec -- works to educate
the public, and enforce intellectual property rights.
The BSA is calling a Truce. You have one month to get legal.
The BSA is offering a Software Truce in {City} between November 1 and December 1.
Take tins time to review your software installations and usage and, if necessary, acquire the licenses
you need. If your organization becomes fully licensed during the Truce, BSA will not seek to impose
penalties for any unauthorized copying that occurred before December 1 (unless your organization
has been informed it is already under investigation). If you are contacted by the BSA, just show your
Truce Participation Number and software purchase receipts to the BSA, to take advantage of the
Truce. [Please see the reverse for terms.]
Unauthorized copying is the same as stealing. If you're caught, your organization could face penalties
totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. The enclosed document contains -news clips from
organizations that learned their lesson the hard way.
Not sure if you're fully licensed? We can help you find out.
Trying to determine whether your organization is using illegal software? Visit our website at
www.bsatruce.com for more information and to download our free Software Audit tool, or call our
special Truce hotline at l-877-536-4BSA (1-877-536-4272). If you find that you aren't 100%
licensed, contact your software vendor immediately and buy the software licenses you need before the
Truce ends on December 1, 2000.
Sincerely,
Bob Kruger
Vice President
Business Software Alliance
Back of letter:
Truce Participation Terms
The BSA is declaring a 30-day Truce between November 1, 2000 and December 1,2000.
1. For your organization to qualify for the Truce program:
o it must obtain a Participation # either through receipt of a BSA
letter or from the Truce website - www.bsatruce.com;
o its headquarters must be located within the following zipcode:
{City}: {Zip}
o it must not have previously received notice that the BSA or its
members (listed below) have received a report of infringement
and are investigating it; and
o prior to or during the Truce period (November 1, 2000 through
December 1, 2000), it must have acquired sufficient software
licenses to ensure that all software published by BSA members
installed on its computers is properly licensed.
2. After the Truce period ends, if your organization is notified by the BSA or its
members listed below that your organization is under investigation for copyright
infringement, simply produce your Truce Participation # and the dated proofs of
purchase showing that your organization acquired sufficient licenses for its software
installations during or before the Truce period. No penalty will be sought for
infringement that occurred prior to the Truce period.
3. For the purpose of the Truce, BSA members are: Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Bentley,
Corel, CNC/Mastercam, Macromedia, Microsoft, Network Associates and Symantec.
Microsoft Brochure:
The choice is clear
Take control of your business' software assets
and save up to 20%!
The Business Software Alliance -- an
association of leading software developers
-- is cracking down on organizations nation-
wide that use unlicensed software. The
BSA is giving companies that aren't 100%
compliant two choices: get compliant with
copyright law or pay the price.
Take advantage of the BSA's 30-day Truce.
If you're fully licensed, we'd like to commend you for having
a sound software asset management policy in place.
If you're not sure, we encourage you to take part in the
Truce that The BSA is offering during the month of November.
During the Truce, the BSA. will hold off on software investi-
gations. This gives you time to check your software inventory
and if necessary, get the licenses you need before investi-
gations resume on December 1, 2000.
Check your compliance. And save up to
20%! We understand business is hectic. Thats why we've
teamed up with SoftChoice to provide you with a simple way
to double-check your software licenses. Put SoftChoice to
work for you, and here's what you'll get:
1. A free, confidential software consultation.
2. Up to 20% off on Microsoft Windows@ and
Microsoft Office products.
3. Expert advice on how to set up a solid
asset management plan for the future.
So take a proactive approach to protecting your software
assets. Call SoftChoice at 1-877-545-7638 and schedule
your free, confidential software consultation today.
It's the right choice.
Visit www.softchoice.com/truce
That is XP as in Extreme Programming not Microsoft's XP series of software.
Dan
Again, IANAL. I have done some work on systems security in federal government agencies including gathering forensic evidence. In that time I realized how little I know and that information technology forensics requires a mixture of technical and procedural knowhow. I am a novice in the procedural field but have managed to learn a little about what is required.
... VERY bad. Are you just looking for evidence for internal abuse detection? Is the data going to be used in a local or federal police investigation? Will it be used to fire someone? Will they sue and demand your evidence in court? All of these decisions indicate different levels of need for maintaining data integrity.
m or
. ht m
The most important consideration is not technical at all, it's procedural. Someone must decide how important the evidence is and to what lengths its integrity should be guaranteed. Don't let this decision be made by you, unless you are the Security Officer, senior manager or a lawyer. A bad decision is
Once someone makes a call on what length to go to you can start touching things appropriately. Here are some rules of thumb I use:
Maintain integrity as appropriate. For a casual investigation about who is playing Doom over the LAN you just need to look for your evidence and copy it to a secure location in case it is needed. For a situation where the evidence will be used in court you should pull the hardrive(s), computer or other evidence and have a lawyer place them in a safe.
Collecting Evidence for Legal Action. Lawyers love paper. Unlike electronic files they are well understood by the law and are usually treated as being immutable. Lawyers like CDROMs. Though electronic documents are in their legal infancy everyone knows that CDs can't be changed (without leaving trace evidence). Lawyers seek control. Give any evidence to them as soon as possible. Courts tend to believe lawyers when they say the evidence was in their hands and has not been changed. (Though it is hard for me to understand why anyone would believe a lawyer about anything.)
Workstations. If your evidence is on a workstation and it will be used in court ask a decision maker about whether to:
1. Seize the computer
2. Collect an sector by sector image of the HD (leaving workstation in place)
3. Copy files to a secure location (leaving workstation in place)
4. Leave everything alone
Just because you can collect evidence in a particular way doesn't mean you should. If you access a machine without explicit authorization to collect evidence you could invalidate any evidence on the system. Even if you are an administrator for the machine and have the permissions required to collect evidence simply accessing the computer for the purpose of collecting information before being told to could be used to invalidate ANY evidence collected after that time.
Servers. Normally these systems shouldn't be seized, brought down or otherwise kept from providing their services to users. But if the need is great enough they will be. To avoid this you have to be able to document how you collect evidence, what you collect and how you maintain its integrity. Write important logs to CD, discuss what is logged, describe who has access to what and when, explain what information is collected for a particular need, specify where and how it is stored and provide a list of actions taken in each instance of evidence collection. By documenting your procedures in advance and your actions during collection any evidence collected using the procedures will make managers and lawyers more confident of its integrity.
Collecting evidence is the one time NOT to be a cowboy. You can be as confident as you like about the evidence, you still need to convince someone else of its veracity.
The best US governmental source for information is the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division of the DOJ:
http://www.cybercrime.gov/
Computer Forensics Tool Testing (CFTT) Project
http://www.cftt.nist.gov/
Forensic Technologies- Office of Justice Programs and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services in May 2001
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/186822.ht
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/186822.pdf
Best Practices For Seizing Electronic Evidence
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/electronic_evidence
The best resource IMO is the Computer Security Insitute:
http://www.gocsi.org
Dan
I can say exactly what we would have: Windows NT.
(This is where the smart people stop reading and go write a terribly clever Microsoft dig. Us dumb people can continue.)
Yes, NT does have a command line, two actually. CMD.exe is a 32bit extended DOS shell. command.com is it's 16bit little brother. Are they as robust as most *nix shells? No, of course not, mainly because the design philosophy of the two OS's are VERY different. NT is (in design philosophy) a 32bit VMS offshoot that uses a GUI as the main interface.
Because NT shells are typically weak programming environments most serious programming is done via the GUI. This lends itself well to the object oriented design philosophy behind Windows NT. For simple tools and tool combinations the shell is still needed. When I need to manipulate multiple systems across a network for administrative purposes I find it very easy to write a script for most simple operations.
Getting back on topic, how does this affect the types of programs produced that interact between the two? Well, typically there are two effects:
1. The command line arguments are not as robust.
Normally programs run from the command line will concentrate on interface related functions. (i.e.: Run minimized, non-interactive mode, run with the following configuration, location of data files to be loaded before GUI starts). This is a generalization but it is the exceptional NT program that takes more than 1 page in a help file to explain.
2. Tools with GUI's evolve to meet the majority of needs.
This is not to say that the OS manufacturer provides the tools. For example, Microsoft provides many tools for systems administration including Event Log Administrator, Server Administrator, User Manager, etc. A third party tool called Hyena combines these all into a single interface which can output data to a script generation tool. Is it as flexible as a series of command line tools which can interoperate well? No, it isn't. However it fulfills 95% of my systems administration needs.
There is also a secondary affect that very little work is done toward new shell creation. *nix has a rich blend of shell environments developed for it (i.e.: bash, csh, tcsh, etc.). NT has had a very few (and rather weak) NT specific shells created (i.e.: 4NT, KiX). Many shells have been ported to NT from *nix but they typically don't thrive. Why? The file-centric command line shell environments aren't as effective in NT as the object-centric GUI programming environments.
The end effect? The GUI tools created tend to be very powerful but lacking the flexibility of command line tools. (IMHO)
Dan
First, being able to run files in separate memory spaces and as discrete units in no way confers the kind of security NSA must establish. I could see this running on very low security systems (unclassified and classified secret) with strong operational security. But no matter how strong VMWare's virtual machine technology is if data can be written to disk by the VMWare session it could be recovered by another VMWare session on the machine. Just the theoretical possibility of that occuring rules it out of being used for most classified data types.
Second, this 'Professor of Digital Forensics Investigation Fred Cohen' needs to go learn a little about NSA's requirements for C2 security classification. Microsoft MUST provide source code for review to achieve C2. Microsoft has achieved C2 for NT 3.5 and NT4. Therefore the NSA DOES know "what is going on inside NT".
Dan
I only wish an open mind would accompany an open source.
Dan