[cap-talk] Polaris: Virus Safe Computing for Windows XP

[Jed at Webstart]

At 12:08 PM 12/10/2004, David Hopwood wrote:
>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",
>not
>   "there's no definition that says that authority is not necessarily
>    direct".

Ah.  Whew.  Communicating by email can be tough stuff.

--Jed http://www.webstart.com/jed/