CVS update: openprivacy/htdocs/notes

From: cvs@openprivacy.org
Date: Tue Feb 27 2001 - 23:31:13 PST

  • Next message: cvs@openprivacy.org: "CVS update: openprivacy/htdocs/notes"

    Date: Tuesday February 27, 19101 @ 23:31
    Author: fen
    CVSWEB Options: -------------------

    Main CVSWeb: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi

    View this module: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes

    -----------------------------------

    Update of /usr/local/cvs/public/openprivacy/htdocs/notes
    In directory giga:/home/fen/projects/openprivacy/htdocs/notes

    Modified Files:
            whitepaper.shtml
    Log Message:
    move vat reference to a footnote

    *****************************************************************
    File: openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml

    CVSWEB Options: -------------------

    CVSWeb: Annotate this file: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml?annotate=1.31

    CVSWeb: View this file: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml?rev=1.31&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

    CVSWeb: Diff to previous version: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml.diff?r1=1.31&r2=1.30

    -----------------------------------

    Index: openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml
    diff -u openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.30 openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.31
    --- openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.30 Tue Feb 27 23:18:01 2001
    +++ openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml Tue Feb 27 23:31:13 2001
    @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
       </head>
       <body bgcolor="#ffffff">
     
    - <!-- $Id: whitepaper.shtml,v 1.30 2001/02/28 07:18:01 fen Exp $ -->
    + <!-- $Id: whitepaper.shtml,v 1.31 2001/02/28 07:31:13 fen Exp $ -->
         
         <h1>OpenPrivacy - Building a Better Internet</h1>
     
    @@ -214,22 +214,20 @@
               We outline a course-grained capability-based framework in which
               each nexus of reputation services - generally located one to a
               hardware machine - is considered to be a secure computation
    - environment (or "vat") with respect to itself. <font
    - color=red>[present a simple proof that supports this claim, see
    - e.g. <i>Distributed Computing in E</i>, &lt;<a
    - href="http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36">http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36>&gt;.]</font>
    - Communications between vats are signed and encrypted, but also
    - asynchronous and unreliable. Secure streams can be built,
    - analogous to the way in which SSL is implemented on top of TCP,
    - which is in turn implemented on top of UDP, but are not required
    - for operation. Note that communication channels and communicating
    - objects themselves can gain or lose reputation capital according
    - to their reliability and speed. While we define the
    - implementation of the communications mechanism to be outside the
    - scope of OpenPrivacy per se, we expect that a secure, anonymous
    - and uncensorable mechanism such as those that Freenet, Free Haven
    - or Publius provide would be best suited to the need for robust,
    - distributed and private communications.
    + environment (or "vat" [<a href="#dist">dist</a>]) with respect to
    + itself. <font color=red>[present a simple proof that supports
    + this claim]</font> Communications between vats are signed and
    + encrypted, but also asynchronous and may be unreliable. Secure
    + streams can be built, analogous to the way in which SSL is
    + implemented on top of TCP, which is in turn implemented on top of
    + UDP, but are not required for operation. Note that communication
    + channels and communicating objects themselves can gain or lose
    + reputation capital according to their reliability and speed.
    + While we define the implementation of the communications mechanism
    + to be outside the scope of OpenPrivacy per se, we expect that a
    + secure, anonymous and uncensorable mechanism such as those that
    + Freenet, Free Haven or Publius provide would be best suited to the
    + need for robust, distributed and private communications.
             </p>
           </blockquote>
           <h3>Reference Applications</h3>
    @@ -444,17 +442,24 @@
           </p>
         </ul>
           <h3>Bibliography</h3>
    - <dl>
    - <dt><a name="anon">[anon]</a> The Anonymizer
    - <dd><a href="    http://www.anonymizer.com/" target="_new">
    - http://www.anonymizer.com/>
    - </dd>
    - <dt><a name="free">[free]</a> Freedom (by Zeroknowledge)
    - <dd><a href="    http://www.freedom.net/" target="_new">
    - http://www.freedom.net/>
    - </dd>
    - </dl>
    - </blockquote>
    + <blockquote>
    + <dl>
    + <dt><a name="anon">[<b>anon</b>]</a> The Anonymizer
    + <dd>see <a href="    http://www.anonymizer.com/" target="_new">
    + http://www.anonymizer.com/>
    + </dd>
    + <dt><a name="dist">[<b>dist</b>]</a> OpenPrivacy uses
    + capability-based security
    + <dd>see e.g. <i>Distributed Computing in E</i>, &lt;<a
    + href="    http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36"
    + target="_new">http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36>&gt;
    + </dd>
    + <dt><a name="free">[<b>free</b>]</a> Freedom (by Zeroknowledge)
    + <dd>see <a href="    http://www.freedom.net/" target="_new">
    + http://www.freedom.net/>
    + </dd>
    + </dl>
    + </blockquote>
         <br>
         <hr width=200>
         <font size=1><i>Copyright &copy; 2001 Fen Labalme and

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 27 2001 - 23:31:13 PST