From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jul 29 19:25:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.sfo.geocast.com (mail.sfo.geocast.com [209.125.100.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D97637B621; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:25:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from castor@geocast.com) Received: from swamp.sfo.geocast.com ([209.125.100.45]) by mail.sfo.geocast.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA35D0; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:25:33 -0700 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:25:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Castor Fu" X-Sender: castor@swamp.sfo.geocast.net To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Mike Tancsa , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CDSA ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > Anyone take a look at this ? Supposedly coming to LINUX by the end of > > > > August as open source ( http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/faq.htm > > > for > > > > more info.) I guess it kinda reminds me of PAM, but much more > > > > comprehensive... From the FAQ, > > > > > >Give them a few years to work out all of the security vulnerabilities :-) > > > > No doubt. But are there any security initiatives similar to this one out > > there already ? > > GSSAPI sounds similar in concept, but I don't know about coverage. > > It will be interesting to see what license they choose for the reference > implementation: if they care about getting this adopted as a defacto > standard they'd be stupid to GPL it :-) If you look at the web page, the win32 reference implementation is BSD licensed. There were some comments about require 4.5 gigabytes to build it though. . . It seems to provide a lot more services than GSSAPI. . . -castor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message