SEC: object security (fwd)
Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Please forgive me if you have already recieved this. We are having some
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 1:57:51 MET
From: Francois-Rene Rideau <email@example.com>
To: Mike Prince <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: TUNES is a Useful <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: SEC: object security
> In my version binaries cannot forge anything. Because there's no such
> thing distributed, only our LLL which has it's final compile tightly
That's also how I replied to Chris
> Another issue to consider is that of transport between
> machines. I send an agent with a bunch of "secure data" including access
> code to get back into my system to a remote computer. It's hijacked
> (bitjacked?), return codes stolen, data compromised, and "returned" to
> its sender, you. That's the kind of security I'm worried about.
> Problems that arise in a distributed environment. How do we solve those
> problems (besides the obvious answers).
*That's* much more problematic.
If you do not trust a line, you should introduce encryption to secure it;
but it will make things slower.
As I already stated, we need maintain inter-host trust level, which
should measure host and line security and reliability (i.e. chances of
failure; chances of piracy); various checking should be done according to
this trust level.