1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 27 Feb 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 115       Contents:) Re: Andrew, why not Symantec buy OpenVMS? & Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2& Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2# Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 # Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200 , Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-)* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?* Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 27 Feb 2006 06:24:19 GMT2 From: "Dave Weatherall" <djw-nothere@nospam.nohow>2 Subject: Re: Andrew, why not Symantec buy OpenVMS?? Message-ID: <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-QGxxlEtW0pdK@dave2_os2.home.ours>   2 On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:21:55 UTC, "Richard Maher" $ <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote:  J > If anyone speaks Deutsche can they please tell ne the correct phrase I'mL > looking for, for someone who shit's on their own door step? It's somethingH > like Neste-Besmircher (and accurately describes many who frequent this" > forum) but I can't google-it up.  4 Nestbeschmutzer. Yours is a good translation Richard   --   Cheers - Dave W.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:34:52 -0700  From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net> / Subject: Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2 2 Message-ID: <1140996160_6965@sp6iad.superfeed.net>   David J Dachtera wrote:  > Frank da Cruz wrote: > 9 >>On 2006-02-24, Dave Harrold <DHarrold@wi.rr.com> wrote:  >>   > 8 >> . RMS programming for accessing the local file system >  >  > Use the C built-ins?  6 I don't think these are very versitile in handling all6 the attributes VMS files have. Especially with Indexed files.   > 0 >> . Familiarity with VMS-specific FTP protocols >  > J > I wasn't aware there were any, since TCP/IP is a layered product and notI > so much "built into" the kernel, as in UN*X-land. ...unless, of course, F > you're talking about file naming conventions and trying to translateA > between VMS and platforms where filespecs are more "free form".   : Don't VMS FTP products usually have some "extra" stuff for: transferring RMS attributes, such as Indexes, block sizes,8 etc.  These don't usually survive a trip through non-VMS: machines, and are often necessary to make a file usable on VMS.  8 You could ignore the attributes, but then you'd be stuck2 with transferring text files or binaty files only.  Q ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:41:18 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>/ Subject: Re: Building SSL support on VMS V7.3-2 + Message-ID: <440274DE.A51462D2@comcast.net>    Kevin Handy wrote: >  > David J Dachtera wrote:  > > Frank da Cruz wrote: > > ; > >>On 2006-02-24, Dave Harrold <DHarrold@wi.rr.com> wrote:  > >> >  > > : > >> . RMS programming for accessing the local file system > >  > >  > > Use the C built-ins? > 8 > I don't think these are very versitile in handling all8 > the attributes VMS files have. Especially with Indexed > files.  B Indexed files are inappropriate candidates for FTP, in many cases.   > > 2 > >> . Familiarity with VMS-specific FTP protocols > >  > > L > > I wasn't aware there were any, since TCP/IP is a layered product and notK > > so much "built into" the kernel, as in UN*X-land. ...unless, of course, H > > you're talking about file naming conventions and trying to translateC > > between VMS and platforms where filespecs are more "free form".  > < > Don't VMS FTP products usually have some "extra" stuff for< > transferring RMS attributes, such as Indexes, block sizes, > etc.    	 Depends.    G Multinet transfers RMS files to Multinet successfully, but not to UCX.     Can't say about TCPware.  F UCX transfers RMS files to UCX successfully (according to the doc.'s -D I've yet to see it work as late as V5.4 ECO-4), but not to Multinet.   > These don't usually    ...try "never"...     > survive a trip through non-VMS< > machines, and are often necessary to make a file usable on > VMS.   --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:24:15 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) , Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2602061624170001@user-105n8pe.dialup.mindspring.com>  D In article <dtqh3h$ffo$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de1 (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:      > J >Assuming 7.3 is to be the latest VAX version, could one then assume that , >it will cluster with any 8.X ALPHA version?  D We expect the latest VAX version will be cluster-compatible with theI latest Alpha version well into the future.  There is the possibility that 8 you would need to install patch kits to stay compatible.    " >Will there ever be 9.X for ALPHA?  F The question is far too open-ended.  "Ever" is a long time.  V9.x is aE long way from V8.3.  VMS planning generally extends a bit more than 1 H version into the future.  I expect the next Alpha/I64 version after V8.3J will be V8.3-1 or V8.4, but the version number can change very late in the release process.  J Version and feature parity between Alpha and I64 is clearly in demand, andF I expect near-simultaneous releases on both platforms for several more years at least.     F >I know that VAX and Itanium in one cluster isn't supported, but also J >that HP folks have demonstrated such a cluster.  I know that the cluster F >protocoll doesn't have to obey the transitive property, but if VAX X J >clusters with ALPHA Y, and ALPHA Y clusters with Itanium Y (same version I >of VMS on ALPHA and Itanium, to keep it simple), what, from a technical  I >point of view, COULD cause problems between VAX and Itanium?  Or is the  > >lack of support purely due to "not enough demand to test it"?  J There are already a few areas where adding VAXes to a cluster will disableG some features cluster-wide.  But generally VAXes remain compatible with H current VMS clusters.  The major barrier to declaring offical support isH indeed the complexity of testing weighted by the ongoing lack of demand.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:12:40 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> , Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200, Message-ID: <440243EE.D0673189@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: I > That's probably right.  Most people still on VAX are running even older G > versions of VMS.  Those who need more processing power, more features F > etc have a) either already moved to ALPHA or b) are getting ready to? > move to Itanium since it is now clear that VAX won't keep up      H Consider a shop that has a few applicatiosn or hardware that cannot moveH to Alpha, they are stuck on VAX but want new features so that it remains# compatible with their other alphas.   F What is really happening is that HP has given up on VAX customers everC buying HP hardware so they don't care about them and will just take 3 support dollars and not provide anything in return.     D Another aspect is  shops still running VAX is because they have longD decided to phase off VMS and they still have a few apps that haven't  been ported to Windows/Unix yet.  G Giving those people a FREE upgrade to a modern VMS would be a great way G to get them to reconsider their decision to abandon VMS made during the > palmer era. When you consider cost of acquisition for true newD customers, this would be a very inexpensive way to regain those lost1 customers because HP still has a small foothold.    A Sending them a CD with VAX VMS 8.3 with a nice letter with glossy D pamphlets extoling all the features added to VMS over time would getH those customers to take a second look at their old VMS stuff. Even thereE was was 6 months of free support if they upgrade, it woudl still cost C very little and would then make it much more likely those customers 2 would purchase more VMS related products/services.  C And guess what ? If they start adding applications to their VAX-VMS F system(s), they will quickly run out of capacity and will then want to buy new servers.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:30:50 -0500 2 From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <squayle@insight.rr.com>, Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200/ Message-ID: <44022C1A.25894.1A7071F3@localhost>   ( On 26 Feb 2006 at 19:12, JF Mezei wrote:C > Sending them a CD with VAX VMS 8.3 with a nice letter with glossy F > pamphlets extoling all the features added to VMS over time would get? > those customers to take a second look at their old VMS stuff.   F The VMS codebase was split to develop VMS-AXP.  There's no way to get ; all the V8.3 features without merging the codebases -- and  ? DEC/Compaq/HP has made it clear MULTIPLE times that there's no   interest in doing so.   . > [...] it woudl still cost very little [...]   A It would be super-expensive -- 10+ years of parallel development  E leads to huge differences.  Not to mention re-qualifying EVERYTHING,   at least on VAX.  Get a clue!   H > What is really happening is that HP has given up on VAX customers everF > buying HP hardware so they don't care about them and will just take 5 > support dollars and not provide anything in return.   E Those people who are happy with V5.5 have no burning need to upgrade  E to V8.3.  I have lots of customers running VMS V5.5.  Some feel that  C they might need a patch, so they pay for the service.  Others have   dropped support long ago.   = Besides, HP couldn't send out a free copy of V8.3 to all VAX  E customers, even if it existed -- HP doesn't know where all the VAXen   are.  
 --Stan Quayle  Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------8 Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX3 8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA 0 stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com) "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:49:54 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> , Subject: Re: question about VMS732_LMF-V0200, Message-ID: <440276DB.BC82EAA0@teksavvy.com>   "Stanley F. Quayle" wrote:G > The VMS codebase was split to develop VMS-AXP.  There's no way to get 7 > all the V8.3 features without merging the codebases -     @ That has been the case since version 6.something. Yet they still upgraded VMS up to 7.3.   C One can be realistic, expect VAX VMS 8.3 without every feature that C alpha has at 8.3, just like we got 7.2 7.3 etc without all the same ) features as the equivalent Alpha release.   G Having DCL that is at least compatible helps, especially if you want to = be running the same DCL proceudres across nodes in a cluster.   H And while it may be true that there are customers who are happy at 5.5 ,. it shouldn't prevent those who are not at 5.5.  E And of all people, I would have though you would have understood that C giving VAX VMS modern features (even if ODS5 and Java) are missing) C would helop sell VMS on the 8086 which is the solution you provide.   E Now, if Alpha on 8086 emulators really do work, perhaps it will allow H VMS to run on 8086s with modern features so continued development of VAX VMS would be less important.  F However, if HP wants any credibility in all its promises, it shoudl atH least deliver on its promise of a 8.x version of VAX VMS. If it doesn't,: why would anymore believe any promise they make later on ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:36:04 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>5 Subject: Re: Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-) + Message-ID: <440273A4.FC21062C@comcast.net>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > . > In article <4400FE97.49CBCF3C@teksavvy.com>,9 >         JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:  > > Rob Young wrote:F > >>         Doesn't matter.  You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.6 > >>         Smells like your old death FUDding to me. > >  > > K > > Do you have any hard evidence that HP will not do to VMS what it did to 	 > > MPE ?  > H > There you go, proof by lack of evidence.  I seem to remember something( > about that from my logic classes.  :-)   So, no news is good news?    > >   > > Has HP begun to market VMS ? > H > So the status quo continues.  After all, they are not marketing it any > less either.  + How do you go less than zero in that arena?    > > L > > Does HP intend to change its policy to restrict VMS to only the high end< > > and within the high end, to within a few market niches ? > G > As far as I kow, that is the market they envision for it so why would  > they?   E Google this group for some possible answers. A good keyword to use is  "marketing".   > > K > > How do you think HP strategists and bean counters think when they learn 1 > > that the installed base has shrunk big time ?  > K > That it is still business as usual and the cash cow is still giving milk.   B So? The babbling brook is still flowing - never mind that it was aF raging torrent 100 yards wide and forty feet deep 50 years ago. What's your point?    > > > > > Despite corporate downsizing, has HP grown VMS engineeringC > > budgets/staffing so that they can increase development of VMS ?  > K > They are not increasing development, so why would they increase staffing? L > Development continues as it has been with the staff it already had. What's
 > your point?   ( I think you just made his point for him.   > > G > > Do you really have trust in a company whose top managers state that H > > there isn't much growth potential for VMS, when and tell Wall Street5 > > Casono analists that they focus on growth areas ?  > H > I realize english is not your mother tongue, but I couldn't make heads > or tails out of this one.   F It *IS* a bit scrambled. His point (as I read it) is that it's hard toB trust folks who, on the one hand, say that there isn't much growthC potential for VMS, and the other hand tell the "Wall Street Casino" @ analysts that their primary focus is on growth areas, and on theF third(?) hand give every indication that stagnation in VMS-land can be expected to continue.   H > That's enough.  No reason to continue as the rambling just gets worse.F > May not have liked what Marcello said, but it doesn't do any good to9 > try reading a lot more into than what he actually said.   E Well, yes and no. What you don't do or say often "speaks louder" than  what you actually do or say.  A The classic example is the old Grouch Marx bit: "Have you stopped F beating your wife?" Because the question contains a pre-supposition, a/ simple "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.   G Similarly, not actively marketing VMS tells the world that (everyone in F unison now - you too, Rob Y.!) "VMS is dead", where actively marketing1 VMS tells the world that "VMS is alive and well".    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 15:20:29 -0800$ From: "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com>3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? C Message-ID: <1140996029.402274.227160@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>   E So was it ture that OpenVMS is unkackable claim by many hackers?? Or,  is it just a "bluff" story??  @ Im my true opinion, I think the MacOS-X is much much secure thanD OpenVMS....Now I dont want to start a falme war here, but I I AM NOT; and repeat.....NOT a MAC-OS fan nor user and will not be...   > The "unhackable" stories told by hackers at the Vegas DEFCON 9D Convention, was the original OpenVMS, or the Trusted version of VMS?   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 15:39:52 -0800$ From: "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com>3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? C Message-ID: <1140997192.353939.188310@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>   F And no one seemed to answered this question...What make OpenVMS soooooE secure?? Does it have most services disabled by defualt like OpenBSD? A Or, does it have full grade military type encryption schematics??    Please explain....  F I searched the docs but theres quite alot of them..I want to read upon" the security aspects of this OS...   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 19:06:57 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 3 Message-ID: <9uds6z+BkxY+@eisner.encompasserve.org>   j In article <1140996029.402274.227160@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes:G > So was it ture that OpenVMS is unkackable claim by many hackers?? Or,  > is it just a "bluff" story?? > B > Im my true opinion, I think the MacOS-X is much much secure thanF > OpenVMS....Now I dont want to start a falme war here, but I I AM NOT= > and repeat.....NOT a MAC-OS fan nor user and will not be...  > @ > The "unhackable" stories told by hackers at the Vegas DEFCON 9F > Convention, was the original OpenVMS, or the Trusted version of VMS?  L The term "Trusted" typically means "evaluated under some security standard".G V6 of VMS was evaluated at C2 and subsequent versions were long as that H was possible.  There was never a version of VMS with the name "Trusted".G Up through V6.2 there was "Security Enhanced" VMS evaluated at B1.  But # it was the regular VMS at DEFCON 9.    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 19:25:27 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 3 Message-ID: <JSXX5SVltcKX@eisner.encompasserve.org>   j In article <1140997192.353939.188310@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes:H > And no one seemed to answered this question...What make OpenVMS soooooG > secure?? Does it have most services disabled by defualt like OpenBSD?   @ Evaluating operating systems as "like xxx" is a flawed approach.1 The notion of "services" in BSD sound like TCPIP.   C > Or, does it have full grade military type encryption schematics??   1 "Encryption Schematics" is not a meaningful term.   H > I searched the docs but theres quite alot of them..I want to read upon$ > the security aspects of this OS...  6 Then you want to read the NCSC Evaluation Report.  Try  B 	http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-93-002-A.html   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:03:10 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <44025DD7.F9432128@teksavvy.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:B > Evaluating operating systems as "like xxx" is a flawed approach.3 > The notion of "services" in BSD sound like TCPIP.   3 > "Encryption Schematics" is not a meaningful term.      Actually, in some way it is.  D The more secure OSes are the ones which incorporate the new protocolG upgrades quickest. The ones that have the fixed to BIND vulnerabilities < quickest. The ones who inplement TLS, Kerberos etc quickest.  G Consider that VMS doesn't automatically install with a TCPIP stack, SSL E etc. So you don't know what software config a VMS site has (HP SSL or A OpenSLL, which TCPIP stack etc).  Consider the frequency at which ? patches are issued for all of the TCPIP parts on VMS when other G operating systems get those patches right away. (with VMS being just as 0 vulnerable because it shares much of that code).  F Consider that 1/3 of the installed base for VMS is now running on whatF is essentially unsopported and stale software (VAX version) with stuff& like Bind 8 with plenty of weaknesses.  H So yeah, VMS with only VT terminals and no telecom connectiohs is pretty/ secure, and its login process is well designed.   E Question for you: with the proprietary Apache version distributed for H Alpha VMS, if someone enters wrong username/password  "n" times on a webG page, does it ring any alarms, does it activate intrusion detection and @ block the account  like a tradictional terminal login would do ?   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:50:40 +0000 (UTC) 7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? ( Message-ID: <dttpe0$bnt$2@pcls4.std.com>  & "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes:  D >Can someone here please provide me on what makes OpenVMS so secure?  8 The reasons are far too many to list, but here are some:  H 0) VMS was written by paranoid people who knew what they were doing. :-)  H 1) So many Unix and Mickeysoft exploits are buffer overruns by supplyingI    something which expects a null terminated string a huge amount of data F    with no nulls, which overwrites something.  VMS system services useG    descriptors, with a fixed or maximum length.  That much data, and no     more.  I 2) VMS has 4 layers of security between user code and the kernel, so even I    if you find a buffer overrun you just kill just the image and you find E    yourself back at the prompt.  Unix just has two (user and kernel). I    The four are user, supervisor (equivalent to protecting the unix shell G    from user programs), executive (filesystem) and kernel.  VMS code at G    the inner layers check whether data or memory supplied by outer code $    can be acessed by the outer code.  L 3) Unix has two levels of accounts, ordinary accounts, and root with godlikeF    powers.  VMS can give accounts limited privilege to do one or a fewK    types of privileged function _and nothing else_.  Granted, some of these D    can be taken advantage of to give you everything, but most don't.  I 4) Same as 3) but for specific programs/images.  Kinda like an executable E    file owned by root with 's' file protection, but only for specific I    privileged functions.  For example, ordinary processes can't affect or L    even see processes owned by another user unless it has a privilege calledH    'world'.  But you can type $ SHOW SYSTEM and see all the processes onF    the system from any account because that command runs an image withK    'world' privilege.  But that image can't be taken advantage of to bypass      file protection, for example.  # There are more but I'm out of time.    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Feb 2006 20:36:27 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? 3 Message-ID: <5S2lr7N8+ri1@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <44025DD7.F9432128@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote:C >> Evaluating operating systems as "like xxx" is a flawed approach. 4 >> The notion of "services" in BSD sound like TCPIP. > 4 >> "Encryption Schematics" is not a meaningful term. >  >  > Actually, in some way it is. > F > The more secure OSes are the ones which incorporate the new protocolI > upgrades quickest. The ones that have the fixed to BIND vulnerabilities > > quickest. The ones who inplement TLS, Kerberos etc quickest.  A Even if one accepts that paragraph, it in no way matches the term  "Encryption Schematics".  G > Question for you: with the proprietary Apache version distributed for J > Alpha VMS, if someone enters wrong username/password  "n" times on a webI > page, does it ring any alarms, does it activate intrusion detection and B > block the account  like a tradictional terminal login would do ?  C It will if it calls the $ACM system service to handle that username D and password (as it should).  Whether Apache, OSU, WASD or any otherD web server calls $ACM or not is nothing with which I am familiar. My; web vendor uses OSU, but without any logging in by clients.    ------------------------------   Date: 27 Feb 2006 03:06:04 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? + Message-ID: <46f8ksFarqc6U1@individual.net>   3 In article <JSXX5SVltcKX@eisner.encompasserve.org>, 0 	Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:l > In article <1140997192.353939.188310@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes:I >> And no one seemed to answered this question...What make OpenVMS sooooo H >> secure?? Does it have most services disabled by defualt like OpenBSD?  ( Isn't it time to stop feeding the troll?   > B > Evaluating operating systems as "like xxx" is a flawed approach.3 > The notion of "services" in BSD sound like TCPIP.  > D >> Or, does it have full grade military type encryption schematics?? > 3 > "Encryption Schematics" is not a meaningful term.  > I >> I searched the docs but theres quite alot of them..I want to read upon % >> the security aspects of this OS...  > 8 > Then you want to read the NCSC Evaluation Report.  Try > D > 	http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-93-002-A.html   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:46:21 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? + Message-ID: <4402760D.D019561F@comcast.net>    as400 wrote: > H > And no one seemed to answered this question...What make OpenVMS soooooG > secure?? Does it have most services disabled by defualt like OpenBSD? C > Or, does it have full grade military type encryption schematics??  >  > Please explain.... > H > I searched the docs but theres quite alot of them..I want to read upon$ > the security aspects of this OS...  A ...which is why I pointed you to the "Guide to OpenVMS Security".   E Like the UN*X newsgroups, we will expect you to do your own homework.   6 That said, this one might not "jump out and grab you":  H VMS itself (not including the IP stacks) resists break-ins in many ways,E not the least of which is break-in evasion. See the System Management H Utilities Manuals, especially the SYSGEN manual regarding the associatedB system parameters. Try Google-ing this group for that topic, also.  C Identifying those parameters is left as an exercise for the reader.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  & Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page! http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/   ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/   ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:11:31 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 3 Subject: Re: Whats MORE Secure? OpenVMS or OpenBSD? , Message-ID: <44027BEB.4EDE0E7F@teksavvy.com>   David J Dachtera wrote: J > VMS itself (not including the IP stacks) resists break-ins in many ways,. > not the least of which is break-in evasion.   B VMS didn't always have the current level of break-in detection and$ evasion, the intrusion database etc.    G Some have said that for Unix, there is "nothing or everything" level of F privileges and only 2 modes/rings of OS protection. Can anyone confirm= that this is STILL true of all Unix systems including Tru64 ?   E It would not be correct to compare today's VMS with ancient Unix, and  new Unix with ancient VMS.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.115 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
,-0yb?:[VCy^.1^ڋ~ZY}u|]?=o}[mQ(U
gq3Y\??Z^vo^m:exr2E:2ߟ_zwU;,& JQPտQ_|So9J#gڬw	Y%,{pxx.6^]ODU6u۱+y{py[bg"[ןS;	O@;9 	g1]
WŰ=TD=	na*"*ɾM$Rf`~qþ!<6LV򊑶:Gv"ʶLQ;{)jy=w14;J[#o-xx<k#t^ft^pMoM6OVedYȆQzC	'dp. !{cc;*R+LKes}g&'wa\_SR2bvemd?𓓓8gabbg+YD*Tx=9݁Et@x!KJ[sU$f nqBfus:T ~&x+;i8w) 1Lº:-ݥgh5V<C<4mA{x䱣lp'c7$- 2
xA7%)u@|k5p>Xh߽áPXĬ/)Vk6ƥ*^H.9/Y|5-Um0'>0Tc壸ZX\ū@u@<ax.A.6p7|"0􃤘?-fqc.(DH׵,\y=|k\>˄RX760
|a+ģP'St~SHwxn}߳ނRK8qω5/%/+/+o{"+g%ki˟G/VR9`;.HګXf^)͕3c&=d xu	~KsFT"Iz]Wj/3ſ%AT=-8U9fKXlÂGWgQaW FTf5ĿчLa%T?/)-	6oIy
N=6x7;G}rC9$D*Pp1

6_͎c
*Q1
mHx4Q;a1:=yF$,/^MٸkF3onWgoy_ܷPvw,d7,N-`gt_n$7Q%8gZ g7n)*"YG΋ok}o~VoRg'^n\gx)}Ke}[A_~Tg%o_[ROg:?[q^ޠ
Ne^3`mֻpsg{qsg
._	W&0P:f:LǼlDB۾9dvE
<[Рc?t]oً̪n?~y)7\4JLϿ?]O޼~3DɘVZp{.[*A9Q=2CXd)G/e,뼨璻_JD+aݿ֯h7Kg/Ⱦ\<h/kefqv_hJ)<|zFTVue8*oAn%Z%<+XĿz<UX.qwv4ϮNTaWc FTnv%8*dsЙ+ m||
Y- v+[~9(脃a162L;y
v!Y[lP\^W{C*(LDQIbdH^..8%EaENQ5IJ/l
Z*‼?Q}<0x3xQ̾=|sT(u?LFq=Z*
x|XC>t؋Q!Ea6[脣~Agd>
 K.9w08aY<|esTS;c]7aGth4Ekb$lm:p0C͒?f)b=1?JUTgR+7d5IJ?W>|>S8!s ;.¤tlYoFyub
RL~sFTr]* <bϷ~r<}
[*Ybz7__{`o}SoI灁K.vi*r}0%m{pxi
(:f@zuANa:oK_To6yUrh{V_~?׾9-5JV&xg~_Cy+ҸwźԵ;̥[a|W~~=7sm\	߃_'.y
D~sƩMU<_o;l/SyM?~+VR3vq	ԭ{/S_<py{ۻ5
nXwΗYXxwR~+*^
%[/ϲfLHb$u~KͳĿXxFBUsFq4]DZc]VS+V4aKi>[5	'߭J<+i^=c(VžaՓ9|Dpe*O~,;uPe#*C_ݺBB>/s,}h6.>ݛūZBi7sGo%}h\0{APtP<=&0+MR@q3Ǝ޹pCƆaߥom/9ICx3,MgSXWG8塵ޘ#\vm]pN2	~/	SM17%9iBϏbUƛ֫FRqv/M%l@󪺱NGWM;cA*rN$a	9	\mK%_?KEu[VeS+"t qb,oJMpOȣSѸICQ?qVCp|/zncQxen7|*N:`Boi+('N?36JO9zEm>㇮&X`X r
u<ON))gm'z"+fqr+vZ揦Q?ᯇ[VC<A3"/
"=8F~pOoh
e)I