Re: Object Capability model for IoT

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Tim Coote <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The aspect that I’m struggling most with is how to ensure that
> capabilities don’t just become strings


Using strings for capabilities is fine, so long as they aren't
(cryptographically) forgeable. Sometimes these are called 'password
capabilities' or 'sparse capabilities'. I tend to favor meaningful strings
that are signed with HMAC or PKI, or simply encrypted strings, to represent
capabilities.

Avoiding large random strings helps avoid stateful table maintenance or
distributed garbage collection. Using encrypted strings as capabilities
also admits an interesting possibility of leveraging homomorphic
encryption, i.e. some ability to operate upon a capability (e.g. to
attenuate it, block facets) without cross-network communication.

_______________________________________________
cap-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk