[cap-talk] communication and capabilities

[David Hopwood]

John Carlson wrote:
> 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?

Yes, and yes. The capability system is everything "below" a certain
abstraction line (the OS or language interface).

> 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?

No.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>