3 ms·
> Capability based security … allowed you to run any program, with no danger to your system. ‘No danger to your system’ shouldn't be conflated with ‘no danger
by kps 6y ago
> Capability based security … allowed you to run any program, with no danger to your system.
‘No danger to your system’ shouldn't be conflated with ‘no danger to you.’ The problem with capabilities is that they reinforce and solidify the ‘smartphone model’: your data isn't yours, it's an app's, so what you're permitted to do with it is entirely controlled by someone else.
- Jtsummers 6y agoWe shouldn't fear ideas just because it could be used to restrict some users of some systems. In the end, there will continue to be a market for less regulated hardware and OSes. Linux and the BSDs, as an end user if you own the system, are still wide open. x86/x64 systems aren't getting more locked down in general, and there's a significant movement toward more open hardware (at least within some niches) with RISC-V. Something like capability based security would be a godsend for the corporate and enterprise environment compared to what's commonly in place.