On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 8:48 AM Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > In my view, the confused deputy happens when the deputy (or the > verifier here in VC parlance) doesn't fully know what the issuer > actually authorized -- because the authorization doesn't designate > *what* it's for, it only states some power that the subject has to act > on *something*. That means that the deputy is left to figure out what > that something is on their own -- or to dangerously accept whatever > the presenter says it should be. > I think that's backward, at least in Norm Hardy's example. The invoker specifies "what," and the API specifies what permissions are needed. The deputy has no choice but to use its own permissions. > > At the end of the day we'd have to ask ourselves if taking this > approach was worth whatever the benefits are vs. just using a simpler > model to represent delegatable authorization capabilities. I agree. -------------- Alan Karp
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2022 21:59:03 UTC