This text appears in most saga documents. I see it only as a definition of what we mean by secure. It does not mean much but is harmless. Sorry for the delay in responding last week - some things cropped up! Steve On 16 Dec 2012 08:30, "Ole Weidner" <ole.weidner@rutgers.edu> wrote:
Hi Andre,
I don't think I can agree with section 1.2 "Security Considerations". It reads:
"A SAGA implementation is considered secure if and only if it fully supports (i.e. implements) the security models of the middleware layers it builds upon, and neither provides any (intentional or unintentional) means to by-pass these security models, nor weakens these security models’ policies in any way."
Implementing the SAGA 'security models' (i.e., saga contexts and maybe permissions?) doesn't make an implementation 'secure'. 'Secure' is a very strong (and overloaded!) term and should really be avoided altogether.
Best, Ole
On Dec 13, 2012, at 18:49 , Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
Hi Steve, all,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Steve Fisher <dr.s.m.fisher@gmail.com> wrote:
Andre, Will you circulate a new PDF when you want us to read it again? Steve
This would be now -- pdf is attached. Thanks!
Cheers, Andre.
-- Nothing is really difficult... <saga_bindings_python.pdf>-- saga-rg mailing list saga-rg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg