On 04/30/2014 02:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
As is so often found, there are multiple nuanced definitions of a
word, "trust" being the word in the current case.
Simply as a personal definition, trust is that state wherein I accept
assertions at face value and do so because I have effective recourse
should having let my guard down later prove to have been unwise.
Restated as logic,
If I can trust, then I have effective recourse.
and in contrapositive
If I have no effective recourse, then I cannot trust.
That's funny, because by far the most prevalent definition of trusted
systems are those whose failure can break your security policy. They
must be trusted, because they are the last line of defense.
If you have effective recourse, then by that definition trust is not
required.
Think about the trust fall game that is played with children. It
wouldn't be the same with a mattress.
So, trust is something that you end up stuck with once you remove
everything you don't have to trust. Trustworthiness on the other hand
is something that can be established, for example by introduction
(usually appealing to a higher authority), formal verification (requires
transparency), or experience (at best probabilistic guarantees).
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
