From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-25 11:00:45 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.net.uni-c.dk!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Operating System
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology
Message-ID: <slrna9utcq.1rh.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <a62kmf$giv$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <o2td8ug1chantij2e6j80kk56mrafp6e78@4ax.com> <a6825a$75c$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <a6m8h5$rpb$1@helle.btinternet.com>
 <a6nld6$i4n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <jgo59u49ro74pbfvoek6ruqqa5o790mq90@4ax.com>
 <wcc8z8se0oe.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <v30a9usnp895obfnu6ef8t9h6nnn9fkp1r@4ax.com> <3C9514DD.9CF1F84A@san.rr.com>
 <99da9u0909rsblfdcc1ru7jd2r9q461qhk@4ax.com>
 <a76lbh$8i42@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <436o9uc7jg590rv5rb1l9v6be8vk49s278@4ax.com>
 <I9nPMrbg2e5n@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1017082844 25301 129.241.83.82 (25 Mar 2002
 19:00:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21650
Date: 2002-03-25T19:00:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23 Mar 2002 21:47:25 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <slrna9ou09.21m.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:06:58 -0600, James Ross wrote:
>>> I'll agree with that to a point.  A very secure OS should have an
>>> "unsafe" mode where all bets are off -- do whatever you want. However,
>>> under normal conditions no foot wounding allowed. 
>> 
>> How can it the be a secure OS if half the applications you are using are
>> unsecure? 
> 
> That is why not all applications have access to inner mode.  They can
> only harm data to which their own user has access.

You mean like this: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/ ?

But if the OS should have a built in unsafe mode?

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�