[cap-talk] Reducing Ambient user authority in a Type Safe /Memory Safe OS.

[Ben Kloosterman]

What you say is probably technically correct  however even someone like Microsoft and Apple together would struggle changing the corporate security landscape it’s a battle im not going to fight..I have enough on my hands trying to get them onto a new OS.  Get security happy with an OS and it may get into the organization as a Niche.

Regards, 

Ben Kloosterman 

 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: James A. Donald [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com]
 >Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:19 AM
 >To: bklooste at gmail.com; General discussions concerning capability
 >systems.
 >Cc: 'Karp, Alan H'
 >Subject: Re: [cap-talk] Reducing Ambient user authority in a Type Safe
 >/Memory Safe OS.
 >
 >Ben Kloosterman wrote:
 >> -          The desire by admins ( and hence organizations) to allow
 >only
 >> system/security admins to approve certain functions which may includes
 >> installing applications in some organizations.   This includes the
 >> centralized control of rights.
 >
 >People desire what is not good for them.  What they desire is that other
 >people are required to do certain tasks, and then required to seek
 >permissions to accomplish those tasks - which pretty much guarantees
 >that users will work to subvert security.  And since the end user has
 >physical control of the box or the data, the end user will always
 >succeed.  The petty bureaucrat, by maximizing his power within the
 >organization, undermines the organization's security.
 >
 >Observe that one of the big reason's for walmart's success is that other
 >big box company purchasing managers routinely accept bribes from
 >salesmen, while Walmart purchasers are notoriously honest.
 >
 >Meeting admin desires is in this case meeting admin desire to undermine
 >security for personal benefit.  Security mechanisms have to benefit the
 >person who has physical control of the data and the box on which it
 >resides, not the admin, or else they will always be bypassed.