[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KeyNote draft available
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 10:20 PM 3/13/98 -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
>One other point - it appears that all authorizations can be delegated
>indefinitely, right? If one key grants an authority to a second, the
>second key can pass the authority on to a third in any way it likes?
[...]
>In some contexts this may be permissible and appropriate, but perhaps
>not in others, if the end users are not trusted.
>
>Perhaps it would be the application's responsibility to make sure that
>it only provides appropriate credentials, and in this case it should
>not have provided that last one?
Hal,
let me jump in before Bill Frantz gets to -- and make his point for him.
Allowing indefinite delegation is just a way to encourage people not to loan
out their private keys. If we were running pure capability systems, this
would be second nature. Bill does, which is why it's his point. We shouted
him down in the SPKI drafts, but he really wanted delegation to be automatic.
The argument for it is that an end user, trusted or not (and there's that
nasty word again :), will find a way to let someone else use his power...so
you might as well cooperate with the inevitable.
- Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQCVAwUBNQovehN3Wx8QwqUtAQEunwP/Xz2Nt77vyy/Ijrz2Hz632tROTPD7K5be
ipOoMWcp2h88CFqrmVTudmBB1FuQzoYcJNgKTVoUfpDLKw8a9LeVaI6avSLvqqFU
Fggd8aSVNiU2tn/NYmwsdEmDyRU41sJS7Md95lZ54FqeZg6BJM91jhUc17J3KrgB
yFXgkZ/Yjsk=
=liF+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 08FF BA05 599B 49D2 23C6 6FFD 36BA D342 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Follow-Ups:
References: