[cap-talk] What does the [defense?] security community really fear from capabilities?
capability at webstart.com
Sat Jul 14 04:32:52 EDT 2007
At 10:43 PM 7/13/2007, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:25 -0700, Jed Donnelley wrote:
> > One minor point - I think some of the times and dates need to be
> > corrected in Jonathan's message. That 'political' battle is
> > 20 years old (1987-2007), not 30 years old. I'm not sure how
> > to interpret the date in this sentence:
> > > In 1974, when this report was funded, KeyKOS was only just getting
> > > first funding.
> > I can only guess that he means 1984 rather than 1974?
>No. Sadly, I meant 1974. 1974 is indeed the year that KeyKOS first saw
>funding, and the anti-capability memes were well underway by then.
Hmmm. That's interesting. By KeyKOS, do you mean GNOSIS at the time?
That was still work under Tymshare wasn't it? In 1974 Charlie Landau
was still working at LLNL.
When you referred to "this report" in:
I did once have occasion to talk to Virgil Gligor about some of this
stuff (though not about the report specifically). Part of what we all
need to remember is that these authors were charged with a very serious
and very real problem. They had to come up with a recommendation in an
environment where capability ideas were not widely circulated. In 1974,
when this report was funded, KeyKOS was only just getting first funding.
I assumed you were referring to the report:
TRADITIONAL CAPABILITY-BASED SYSTEMS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR ABILITY TO MEET THE
TRUSTED COMPUTER SECURITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
That report wasn't published until 1987. I can't
imagine that it was initially funded in 1974. I assume
then that's not what you meant or were you suggesting
that it really was initially funded in 1974 and just
took 13 years to come out? I certainly know that Jeff
Huskamp didn't start working on it in 1974. He hadn't
even started graduate school at UCB at that time. He
and I were still playing softball together...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cap-talk