[cap-talk] quantum capabilties? was: Re: New here

[John Carlson]

So E isn't implemented in Joe-E yet?  Recall that when E was probably  
written, Java was one of the more secure languages.   I'm not sure  
that Java is so insecure, except that works with JavaScript, HTML,  
XML, SQL etc.  Being text strings, All those languages are somewhat  
subject to insecurity when used with Java.  Perhaps you are referring  
to the insecurity of Java as a client--the problem of authentication?   
That's an interesting problem, but it is generally side-stepped by  
folks here.  What they say is that you need to be introduced before  
sending messages.  Once you have a reference, you are ready to  
communicate.  I have thought about this bootstrapping problem some.   
Essentially, you should be able to send anyone a capability to send a  
capability to you.  The recipient of the original message is free to  
ignore the message.

What's the status of quantum cryptography?  I'm looking at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/apr08/6203 
   Looks like authentication is an issue with the "best"  
cryptography.  So we need to toss out authentication?  Does Horton  
help here?  What is the difference between capabilities and entangled  
particles?  Does the authentication patch mentioned in the article  
help with classical systems?

John

On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:

>> If a secure programming language (like E) is writing using a non  
>> secure
>> programming language (like Java), don't we have a problem?
>
> well, everything bottoms out in microcode. or quantum states. neither
> of which generally have security in mind?
>
> sincerely.
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk