Talk:Capability
From Erights
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 11:51, 10 July 2009 (CDT) | [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 11:51, 10 July 2009 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Please demonstrate, then. Demonstrate that "Capability" implies "Secure capability" in global vernacular and I'll be happy to recant. But I suspect you're not qualified to do that, either.'' | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 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. Cannot these two different terms:
- unforgeable
- hardly unguessable
be contracted to some single adjective? Using the term "unforgeable or hardly unguessable" is awkward. Kosik 10:59, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
I'm afraid you didn't grok. I mean to say that capabilities may be very forgeable and guessable. They simply aren't secure capabilities, or suitable for capability-based security. And the page still has a heavily object-capability bias.
Concerning object-capability bias, see my suggestion at the top of the page. More example are needed and can be added. I am just not qualified to give them.
It is possible to demonstrate that if you say "capabilities are very forgeable and guessable" you are wrong.
Kosik 11:51, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
Please demonstrate, then. Demonstrate that "Capability" implies "Secure capability" in global vernacular and I'll be happy to recant. But I suspect you're not qualified to do that, either.
