[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design principles and ethics
From: |
Pierre THIERRY |
Subject: |
Re: Design principles and ethics |
Date: |
Mon, 1 May 2006 17:15:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 01/05/2006 hora 11:30:
> In order to guarantee confinement (and encapsulation, as you define it below),
> A. The instantiator must know that there is no unauthorized outward
> communication. Unauthorized by the instantiator, that is.
> B. The parent must know that information cannot be extracted from the program
> without the parent's consent.
>
> Now the question is: are these requirements fulfilled for the case of "trivial
> confinement". Indeed they are, because in that case the parent and the
> instantiator are the same process, which leads to an implicit trust of each
> other.
But trivial confinement adds an additional, perhaps unwanted,
requirement:
C. The child cannot have any capability that the parent couldn't gain
access to.
Am I wrong?
Additionaly,
Nowhere man
--
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics,
Pierre THIERRY <=
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Tom Bachmann, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/02