4 ms·

> Try and read GPS data without asking the operating system for that capability. That's not capability-based security: you have to do that whichever model is i

by tonyg 4y ago

> Try and read GPS data without asking the operating system for that capability. That's not capability-based security: you have to do that whichever model is in use. The ocaps come in when you use dependency injection (aka "function call") everywhere to pass in rights to make use of resources. Neither Android nor iOS are meaningfully object-capability based.

charcircuit 4y ago
Yes, it is. Capability based security by definition just requires that apps have a list of a capabilities and those capabilities govern what APIs / resources it has access to. There is no requirement of dependency injection. That is an implementation choice.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  > just requires that apps have a list of a capabilities and those capabilities govern what APIs / resources it has access to No, that would be mandatory access control. Completely different concept.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    You seem to be getting caught up with the implementation details. The whole point is that programs shouldn't be given overly broad access to the system. Access can be granted to programs by giving them capabilities. Whether that be from tokens or something else it doesn't matter. Please remember from the first commented: >Alas, we're in the timeline without capability based security. where users can't just give a file to a program at runtime using a (powerbox) dialog. This is literally how Android already works today. An app can not read a random file from the system. It has to open a file selector and you have to select a file before an app is able to read it.
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      > This is literally how Android already works today. An app can not read a random file from the system. It has to open a file selector and you have to select a file before an app is able to read it. That's not implemented on the OS level.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        >That's not implemented on the OS level. Yes, it is. The Storage Access Framework is a part of the operating system.

by tonyg 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

Yes, it is. Capability based security by definition just requires that apps have a list of a capabilities and those capabilities govern what APIs / resources it has access to. There is no requirement of dependency injection. That is an implementation choice.

still_grokking 4y ago
> just requires that apps have a list of a capabilities and those capabilities govern what APIs / resources it has access to No, that would be mandatory access control. Completely different concept.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  You seem to be getting caught up with the implementation details. The whole point is that programs shouldn't be given overly broad access to the system. Access can be granted to programs by giving them capabilities. Whether that be from tokens or something else it doesn't matter. Please remember from the first commented: >Alas, we're in the timeline without capability based security. where users can't just give a file to a program at runtime using a (powerbox) dialog. This is literally how Android already works today. An app can not read a random file from the system. It has to open a file selector and you have to select a file before an app is able to read it.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    > This is literally how Android already works today. An app can not read a random file from the system. It has to open a file selector and you have to select a file before an app is able to read it. That's not implemented on the OS level.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >That's not implemented on the OS level. Yes, it is. The Storage Access Framework is a part of the operating system.