Re: A broken brand?
"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
ah, of course, makes sense. thanks. On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2008, at 18:04, Raoul Duke wrote: > > >> The problem here is that we have two situations that we cannot > >> really > >> distinguish. One of them is considered valid (holding the > >> unsealer and a > > > > is reflection generally considered fair game? e.g. the box could test > > if there are extra stacks in the call hierarchy? > > No. The box (all objects in an ocap system, even) has no authority to > have that information. > > Making call stack information available puts you right back to > identity-based access control, confused deputies, and information > leakage. > > -- > Kevin Reid <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > e-lang mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang >