- From: Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:07:53 +1000
- To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk>
- Cc: public-credentials@w3.org
- Message-Id: <BB815C97-63BB-41DF-BF0F-E4AC301964EC@gmail.com>
David C said “ I am asserting that with an appropriate schema a VC can be specified to be a capability.” Dave L said “ This is the core problem with trying to shoehorn authorizations into VCs. “ I offer this With appropriate changes, you can always take several different “things” and turn them into one “do-any-thing” - but in my 20 years as an enterprise architect I’ve never once seen that strategy pay off. It’s always better to have a dozen nimble and loosely coupled systems, each doing one thing well, that it is to try to shoe-horn them all into an ERP or CRM based configuration monster. So my instinctive sympathies certainly lie with Dave L Kind regards Steven Capell Mob: 0410 437854 > On 9 Sep 2022, at 5:32 am, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 08/09/2022 19:49, Manu Sporny wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:31 PM David Chadwick >> <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote: >>> Thus I conclude that the whole confused deputy argument for why capabilities are better than credentials is a spurious one. >> David, you seem to be re-defining the precise language Alan is using >> to describe the problem and the solution with your own definitions >> (which are ill defined). The terms he is using have formal definitions >> in computer science, some of which can be found here: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused_deputy_problem >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_authority >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-capability_model >> >> You need to assert that either: >> >> 1) Your solution binds an unforgeable reference to a resource with the >> operation to be performed (and thus IS a capability), > I am asserting that with an appropriate schema a VC can be specified to be a capability. > > Kind regards > > David > >> or >> 2) It doesn't do #1, but addresses the confused deputy and ambient >> authority problems in some other way. >> >> So, let's start there, are you arguing for a non-capabilities based >> system to be expressed using Verifiable Credentials? If so, how are >> you solving for (at the very least) ambient authority and confused >> deputy? >> >> -- manu >>
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2022 20:08:09 UTC