Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added meta.security object and Security documentation #137

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Apr 11, 2017

Conversation

d-stahl-ericsson
Copy link
Contributor

As per issue #129.

This commit adds support for using the Strong Distribution Model for ensuring the integrity of events and authenticity of event authors. This is achieved via an optional meta.security.sdm object, with two required properties: authorIdentity and encryptedDigest.

Schemas have been updated accordingly, and one example (ArtP) provided.

As per issue eiffel-community#129.

This commit adds support for using the Strong Distribution Model
for ensuring the integrity of events and authenticity of event authors.
This is achieved via an optional meta.security.sdm object, with two
required properties: authorIdentity and encryptedDigest.

Schemas have been updated accordingly, and one example (ArtP) provided.
@ebopalm
Copy link

ebopalm commented Apr 7, 2017

a) A typo in the text section:
any more than English ir secure or French is insecure

b) Challenging the statement:
Security is not a property of the language or the protocol, but of the communication channel.
Since the communication channel is only part of the entire security aspect, a alternate expression would be:
Security is not a property of the language or the protocol only, but an end-to-end responsibility.

@d-stahl-ericsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Typo: Ok, fixed!

Security not being a property of the protocol: I challenge your challenge :) If you agree with anything else in that text, I don't really see how you can disagree with that particular statement? In what way is security a property of the protocol itself? And which type of security? Confidentiality, integrity or availability?

@erobged
Copy link

erobged commented Apr 10, 2017

documentation is clearly written and examples are defined in the simple.json events.
I see no reason to withhold approval.

@erobged erobged requested review from erobged and removed request for erobged April 10, 2017 12:43
@rogpers-ericsson
Copy link

👍

@d-stahl-ericsson d-stahl-ericsson merged commit fab2571 into eiffel-community:master Apr 11, 2017
@d-stahl-ericsson d-stahl-ericsson deleted the issue129 branch September 13, 2018 10:31
@magnusbaeck magnusbaeck added protocol All protocol changes protocol-incompat Protocol changes that aren't backwards compatible labels Nov 21, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
protocol All protocol changes protocol-incompat Protocol changes that aren't backwards compatible
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants