Talk:Ambient authority

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Untitled[edit]

There are certainly drawbacks with the use of ambient authority, and NPOV is not always the most accurate (an article on bubble sort can't get by without noting the extreme drawbacks) but I still can't help but get a very strong impression that this is pushing the alternative of object-capability security through weasel-wording: "little option", "hoping for the best" and so on. The erights people may be very technically competent, but an encyclopedic article calls for something better than evangalism. Just the facts, maam. 206.173.243.159 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity[edit]

In this sentance, "a 'name' is any way of referring to an object that does not itself include authorising information, and could potentially be used by any subject" it is ambiguous whether "and could potentially be used by any subject" qualifies "a way of referring" or "authorizing information." Please consider rephrasing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrae (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]