I cannot find any documentation either way, but the idea that this system is monolithic in nature doesn't feel right to me. This would seem to defy both the reference monitor requirement and the minimization/simplifcation as part of the B3 requirement in the orange book. I'm going to see if I can't hunt down the old TCSEC evaluation as they used to have more information than the CC ones. If anyone has an authroritative reference either way, I'd appreciate it. (Lots of un-authoritative ones claim either monolithic or microkernel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the idea of avoiding "advertisements" on the Wiki. I have tried to reword the initial XTS-400 content. Can you tell me what remainging content/wording seems too much like an advertisement?
The link given in the security section gives a 404 error. I have found what I believe to be the correct link, but I'd like this to be verified before added. If this is the correct link, feel free to update the page. Old link (which gives 404): http://niap.bahialab.com/cc-scheme/st/ST_VID3012a.cfm Link which I believe is correct: http://niap.bahialab.com/cc-scheme/st/?vid=3012 Rhussey84 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"as of July 18, 2006, is the only general-purpose operating system with a Common Criteria assurance level rating of EAL5 or above."
I'm not sure if INTEGRITY-178B is considered a "general purpose" OS, but according to this article, it has been rated EAL6+. So if it is indeed appropriate, this claim should be updated. -Verdatum (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, INTEGRITY-178B is a real-time operating system. It targets a completely different protection profile, separation kernel protection profile (or SKPP). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)