[cap-talk] communication and capabilities

[John Carlson]

On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:14 PM, David Hopwood wrote:

> John Carlson wrote:
>> One issue I have with capability systems is that they seem to assume
>> that the communication path between objects is secure.
>
> They don't assume that; the concept of a capability system explicitly
> requires it. That is, whatever protocol layer is responsible for  
> securing
> the communication path between objects is considered to be part of the
> capability system "kernel".

What is a capability system kernel...does it include the hardware,  
signals?  Does it
include atoms?  I think at some fundamental level, things become  
insecure.  They
may be so insignificant that we can't access them with current  
technology, but that
doesn't mean that your system is secure.  Is there an animal that  
doesn't get bacteria
and viruses?   Will quantum computing solve these problems, or  
destroy our current
solutions?

I think assumption is a better term than requirement.  Many of us  
assume that our
brains are secure.  Do you?

John