Talk:Capability
From Erights
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Further, capability doesn't imply '''unforgeable''' unless you're talking about '''secure''' capabilities, and '''capability-based security'''. | Further, capability doesn't imply '''unforgeable''' unless you're talking about '''secure''' capabilities, and '''capability-based security'''. | ||
| - | : You are right. Some capabilities are indeed unforgeable and some are merly ''hardly guessable''. | + | ---- |
| + | |||
| + | : You are right. Some capabilities are indeed unforgeable and some are merly ''hardly guessable''. [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 10:56, 10 July 2009 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 10 July 2009
The article can be further improved by given more examples of capabilities from CapROS, EROS and Coyotos systems. What objects can those capabilities designate? Which operations do those capabilities permit their holder to perform with designated objects? Kosik 05:17, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
It seems the article describes an object-capability as though it is the only sort. I understand it is the type of capability used in E and such, but other sorts are used for security.
- Password Capabilities (SPKI, Certificates) do not need to designate objects
- Object Capabilities
Further, capability doesn't imply unforgeable unless you're talking about secure capabilities, and capability-based security.
- You are right. Some capabilities are indeed unforgeable and some are merly hardly guessable. Kosik 10:56, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
