Response to 'Problems with DCE Security Services' To the Editor of ACM CCR: I would like to respond to the article "Problems with DCE Security Services", by G. White and U. Pooch, published in the October 1995 issue of ACM Computer Communication Review (Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 512). Regrettably, that article contains approximately 50 errors. I correct those errors below. But first, some general observations are in order. To begin with, I do not, of course, attribute deliberate misrepresentation to the White-Pooch errors. Simple human fallibility is undoubtedly the cause of the errors. What vitally concerns me, however, is that some readers may simply accept the assertions of White-Pooch without further investigation. That would be detrimental to the hard work of many good people. For that reason, the White-Pooch cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected. e r r o r s I next observe that the White-Pooch paper is apparently based on the DCE 1.0 release, instead of the more appropriate DCE 1.1 release. The contents of DCE 1.1 were determined during an extensive and open design period extending from January 1992 (when DCE 1.0 was released) to November 1994 (when DCE 1.1 was released). During that
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/response-to-problems-with-dce-security-services-LHjrwnZprQ