msd001 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 03:23:19 UTC 2013
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
> 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
If you aren't afraid of some pseudo-code, please Crockford's solution via
capabilities titled "Satan comes to
Now the challenge is design a capability-based solution that will remain
secure regardless of bad actors A or C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat