W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2012

Re: TAC + roles + resource access control = UAC

From: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:34:21 +0200
Message-ID: <502EC6ED.1070208@axolotlfarm.org>
To: Emmanuel Dreux <edreux@cloudiway.com>
CC: Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
Am 17.08.2012 12:16, schrieb Emmanuel Dreux:
> You wrote: "Why No Deny? There is no uac:denyAccessToTriple property
> because it would just cause trouble. Think about foaf:group provided
> by a server which is temporary not reachable. If you would deny
> access for this group you have a problem. A concept of deny just will
> not work with distributed data."
> I'm discovering your technologies that look promising and my first
> comment after reading your mail is that I will have a lot of pain to
> adopt a model where the acls are not defined/stored at the same
> location than the data. Typically for the reason you are exposing.
> Indeed security is too important to let network issues and latencies
> impact the result of the evaluation of the authorizations.

It's up to you where you store your groups / which groups you use. Of
course you can use only local groups and/or local copies. But a proxy
server can do this for you. And it all depends on the use case. Here
some examples:

	Access for friends of friends
This is a well known feature on big social networks. People will ask for
it and they are willing to give their friends indirectly control over
some parts of their acls.

	A project leader maintains a list of project members
In the enterprise market we will have scenarios with many different
systems. A project leader maintains the list of project members in the
DMS system. The company has also a special CAD system that has it's own
file storage. Why maintain the group again in the CAD system?

> (Note that I might be very old fashion and intellectually sticked in
> a Unix / Windows model where acls are placed "on" the object
> protected).

I understand your concerns, but in the linked data world there is no big
difference if a group is on the same server/system/network or not. With
the way how you define/use groups you can also define your
technical/security/trust boundaries.

If you like please join the Skype session I mentioned in the other mail
1h ago.

> --
> Regards,
> Emmanuel Dreux
> http://www.cloudiway.com
> Tel: +33 4 26 78 17 58
> Mobile: +33 6 47 81 26 70
> skype: Emmanuel.Dreux
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 22:35:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:10:32 UTC