[ExI] Verification

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
wrote:
> Sometimes A was removed from office, his term ended, he was fired,
> he was transferred. Sometimes it is completely untrue, and C has
> nefarious motives.
>
> How does S confirm that A's security privileges should be removed or
> lowered and that someone else's should be granted or raised?

> Do you know of legal, procedural, or technical solutions that you think
> adequately cope (from both S's and B's point of view) with the possibility
> that either A or C is a bad actor?

It reminds me of the Dining philosophers
problem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem>

If you aren't afraid of some pseudo-code, please Crockford's solution via
capabilities titled "Satan comes to
dinner<http://www.crockford.com/ec/dining.html>
."

Now the challenge is design a capability-based solution that will remain
secure regardless of bad actors A or C.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem
http://www.crockford.com/ec/dining.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130808/d29d899e/attachment.html>