Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:40:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4DF51644.7090404@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:40:52 -0700
From: "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
Reply-To: andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net
Organization: comp-arch.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: History of byte addressing
References: <18608bba-ef46-4abb-9eed-d94089feb2ce@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <23mnu61edv7fhk7jqu583t426g10ep0e20@4ax.com> <6567982e-af70-494f-b064-72a8c587665c@g28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <_6_Gp.42449$5f.2673@newsfe19.iad> <isht8n$m84$1@dont-email.me> <Nd8Hp.394$tp.382@newsfe06.iad> <isj3ub$44n$1@dont-email.me> <4DEDBA2F.6010503@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <islfn2$h6g$1@dont-email.me> <4DF39E44.8070705@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <IWOIp.2141$xh5.1219@newsfe02.iad> <8928v6pa9o42u880oihp16l60uqsn4gbc3@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <8928v6pa9o42u880oihp16l60uqsn4gbc3@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zpvHEZBWjaM7rlWe1d2MyAt/j9CpkNGjtOHoeYAS1vizSh84cHSGoxP2XDt3tQy+RuxjavO2LxCeoJd!91WDBjL6DBiWl73EZUmo5JAKvDFaJ0n/b5z6zu7ose/ET6jd4L+3QuVQrPAm
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2718
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.arch:2172

On 6/11/2011 5:52 PM, Louis Krupp wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:59:06 -0400, EricP
> <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com>  wrote:
>
>> Andy "Krazy" Glew wrote:
>>>>> The problem with Burroughs' model is that you have to prove the compiler
>>>>> and/or assembler correct.

> In about 1977, Burroughs had some of these systems at the National
> Security Agency.  I know because Burroughs wanted to move me there.
> For various reasons, I didn't go.
>
> I'd like to know why these systems were judged insecure.
>
> Louis
>



I believe  that the paper I am referring to is:

V. Gligor.
Hardware Selection and Evaluation Guidelines for Trusted Computer Systems.
Draft , Dept. of Electrical Engineerings, University of Maryland,
November, 1984.

Last time I googled this I was able to find a scanned version online.  I 
haven't been able to this time.

However, Prof. Gligor is still around, I believe.

---

By the way, for the Burroughs folk:  Blaine Gaither may have been the 
guy who referred me to this paper.