<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3ASecure_operating_system</id>
	<title>Talk:Secure operating system - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3ASecure_operating_system"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Talk:Secure_operating_system&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-05-03T18:05:59Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.1</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Talk:Secure_operating_system&amp;diff=803470&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>imported&gt;Cewbot: Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Talk:Secure_operating_system&amp;diff=803470&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2024-08-27T16:29:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/wiki143/index.php?title=User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;redlink=1&quot; class=&quot;new&quot; title=&quot;User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration (page does not exist)&quot;&gt;Maintain {{WPBS}}&lt;/a&gt;: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;{{WikiProject banner shell|&lt;br /&gt;
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Operating systems that achieve a [[Common Criteria]] certification, are still not generally considered &amp;quot;secure&amp;quot; operating systems.  100% security is practically impossible.  Therefore the standard name for a system that is common criteria certified is &amp;quot;trusted&amp;quot;.  I think this article should be moved to &amp;#039;trusted operating systems&amp;#039;.  I could be wrong about the specific semantics though. Hopefully someone can comment. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 12:17, May 28, 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, what level of certification did Trusted Solaris get?  I&amp;#039;d be surprised if it was B2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: details [http://wwws.sun.com/software/security/securitycert/trustedsolaris.html here] (it&amp;#039;s alphabetti-spaghetti to me) -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 12:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::EAL4 is the level it recieved it seems (along with some protection profile augmentation, whatever that means. [http://csrc.nist.gov/cc/Documents/CC%20v2.1%20-%20HTML/PART3/PART36.HTM] For an explanation of the EAL levels.  I&amp;#039;m not sure how or if those map accurately to the old [[Orange Book]] levels of B2 C1, etc. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 14:36, May 28, 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:::C2 is typically put at CAPP/EAL4 -- Controlled Access Protection Profile, a discretionary access control model, at Assurance Level 4.  The B-levels from the Orange Book introduced MAC (Mandatory Access Control), which maps to the MAPP, or Mandatory Access Protection Profile, under the [[Common Criteria]].  This isn&amp;#039;t NPOV, but EAL4 is really inadequate for a B2-equivalent sytem.  Perhaps B1, but B2 was, as I recall, the first of the so-called &amp;quot;high assurance&amp;quot; levels of trust.  Anyone know where I can add that bit of gibberish and any other gibberish I can remember from when I was doing formal evaluations?  Send me a note as I don&amp;#039;t aways Wiki often enough for Talk page comments to show up in my watched page changes list. [[User:Jfhaugh|Tall Girl]] 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This page needs to be moved, as it&amp;#039;s POV. Something along the lines of &amp;quot;Security certification based operating systems&amp;quot;, or something. Taxman&amp;#039;s above comment that &amp;quot;100% security is practically impossible.&amp;quot; is probably pertinent and the title is not reflecting it. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 12:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: the way things were a few days ago, when everything was in &amp;quot;security focussed...&amp;quot; seemed fine to me. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 12:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The security focused... article claims to be about systems that have not been certified, but are focused on security.  This article could be about only OS&amp;#039;s that have achieved [[Common Criteria]] or other standard certification.  I concur with the move Dysprosia has outlined, but perhaps &amp;quot;Operating systems with security certification&amp;quot;. That is more accurate than &amp;quot;certification based&amp;quot; - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 14:36, May 28, 2004 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I know this is a really old comment by [[User:Taxman|Taxman]], but I think the current page name is more appropriate, and then stick to evaluated systems within the body of the article.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Trusted operating systems&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is often confusing as the meaning of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;trust&amp;#039;&amp;#039; within the industry is different than what people outsite the community understand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;trust&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to mean.  I know that&amp;#039;s a lousey reason, but I think articles have to be accessible to those outside specialized fields, too. [[User:Jfhaugh|Tall Girl]] 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>imported&gt;Cewbot</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>