[cap-talk] Polaris: Virus Safe Computing for Windows XP
david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Dec 10 15:08:05 EST 2004
Jed Donnelley wrote:
> At 09:57 PM 12/9/2004, David Hopwood wrote:
>> Jed at Webstart wrote:
>>> "By properly distinguishing authority from permission, Polaris
>>> doesn't leave any dangling permissions to be cleaned up later."
>>> from the Polaris paper.
>> That's not a particularly good way of expressing it: there's no general
>> principle that says authority should be indirect. In context, it would
>> be sufficient to say
>> "By using this approach Polaris does not leave any dangling permissions
>> to be cleaned up later."
> I'd certainly be happier with the above. However, if I'm understanding
> their other writing it is exactly the indirectness that turns "permission"
> into "authority".
Arrgh, ambiguous reading. I meant:
"there's no general principle that says it is *desirable* for authority
to be indirect",
"there's no definition that says that authority is not necessarily
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>
More information about the cap-talk