IP: Re: latest RANT -- on security from Jock Gill!

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

It is unfair to shoot at Intel re 


> On the other hand, if Microsoft and Intel, with most of the rest of the
> industry, refuse to support these issues, where is the trusted source who
> can say these are important issues?  The press?  Where are they?


At least in the Intel case there is a long history of interest in security
at the hardware level. Although many don't remember the Intel 432 and the
Gemini (many at Intel wish to forget it due to the cost and market failure)
, that series of machines was intended to create B level secure systems
with assurance supported at the hardware level. They were capability based
machines programmed in Ada. 


As with many attempts at secure products, the market place yawned. I
remeber a survey IBM is said to have made where their customers were
unwilling to pay 2 % -- yes TWO , for high security systems. 


So lots of complaints but no demands for products. Steve Walker and I in an
article titles Trusted Office of the Future commented that some day a major
failure will happen that costs real big money and then you will be unable
to sell as system that is not secure. We also pointed out that that was not
the time to undertake research in how to do it!!!. So far no public
failures but wait.. it will happen.


Dave