Welcome!
To use the personalized features of this site, please log in or register.
If you have forgotten your username or password, we can help.
|
 |
Delegating Trust
Transcript of Discussion
| Book Series | Lecture Notes in Computer Science |
| Publisher | Springer Berlin / Heidelberg |
| ISSN | 0302-9743 (Print) 1611-3349 (Online) |
| Volume | Volume 1550/1999 |
| Book | Security Protocols |
| DOI | 10.1007/3-540-49135-X |
| Copyright | 1999 |
| ISBN | 978-3-540-65663-0 |
| DOI | 10.1007/3-540-49135-X_17 |
| Page | 625 |
| Subject Collection | Computer Science |
| SpringerLink Date | Thursday, January 01, 1998 |
| |
|
Delegating Trust
Transcript of Discussion
Bill Harbison9
| (9) |
Centre for Communications Systems Research, University of Cambridge, UK |
Abstract
Delegating trust. We do use these words, we keep going back to them, you know, what is trust, what is delegation. I’m sure
it will come to a great relief to many of you that I’m not going to talk too much about trust but I would like to point out
that in common with many of the terms we use in security, there doesn’t seem to be any general agreement on what it is. There’s
the orange book definition: a component of the system that can violate the security of the system. There are uses of trust
that are indistinguishable from belief. There are attempts not to use the word at all. I have my own definition, but I won’t
bore you with that today. Needless to say though, this does cause confusion. It’s almost unavoidable that we use the term
but what I thought I would talk about today is the relationship between trust and delegation, because I think there is a relationship.
Fulltext Preview (Small, Large)
|
|
|
|
|
|