This approach to
security through causality in mechanisms dates from the earliest records and
artifacts of the operation of social orders. Our rather immediate and specific
objective is the use of causality as a means to establishing trust within
computer systems in general, and in secure core systems specifically. We will
begin our discussions by extracting something of the architectural
characteristics of this approach. We’ll then consider the methodology through
which relevant architectures are applied to actual mechanisms for establishing
trust. By first examining in some detail the intricacies of current personal
electronic devices, particularly those that encompass secure core elements, we’ll
then seek to extract a more abstract understanding for such systems. We’ll then
attempt to apply this understanding to real world situations. If we cut to the
chase for this discussion, in the end we’ll find that relative to computer
systems, trust through causality is a necessary, but not sufficient approach to
achieve the desire levels of trust in our systems. This will then provide us
the impetus and a bit better footing when we seek to extend the discussion in
the next chapter to the concept of establishing trust through process.
Given some
seminal point of causality, to convey trust from this point requires a system
whose architecture encompasses the
tamper-resistant and tamper-evident characteristics that we noted above. We
expect this architecture to yield in its implementation the characteristics of
security that we previously discussed in Chapter 3. Over the history of social
ecosystems, such architectures have been established in a variety of forms.
First, and foremost, are architectures that make use of secrets to
convey trust from a point of ultimate causality to some other location within
the ecosystem. The thing, be it artifact or process, that is kept secret is not
trust in and of itself, but rather it typically establishes the identity of
some entity and subsequently allows any trust imbued within that entity to be
conveyed across time or space, or both. Consider in a bit more detail the bulla
that we previously mentioned in earlier chapters.
From exhibits at
the Louvre and other museums throughout the world, specific relics show us that
as early as five millennia ago, the civilizations of Mesopotamia made use of writing on clay tablets to
keep records of quantities of goods exchanged. In order to convey such
accounting information in a trusted fashion, small clay tablets were enclosed
in a sealed clay pocket, called bulla, about the size of a small fist. The
bulla evolved over time until becoming a quite complex object with its very
evolution that we see in the Louvre exhibits giving us a good understanding of
the significance of its constituent components. We’ll consider here its most
elaborate, and final form as far as the archeological record is concerned. On
the surface of the clay pocket was a seal indicating the identity of the
source of the contained information, together with sacred symbols. The seal was
intricate and difficult to construct in the first place, and hence it was
difficult to replace when broken. This mechanism provided a means to convey the
information found inside the bulla along with some degree of trust imbued in
the originator of the information; that is, the person represented by the seal,
validated by the protection afforded by the religious symbols. The owner of
flocks might send some number of sheep to market to be sold. The sheep were
driven to market by shepherds to whom either the temporary custodianship of the
sheep, or the money received from their sale returning from market, might
constitute an overwhelming temptation to sell a sheep or two on the side and
tell the owner the price received for the full complement was less than
anticipated. The shepherds in this situation represent a non-secure
communication channel. The bulla was introduced as a counter-measure against
just this type of threat. A bulla sent by the flock owner could convey to the
purchaser just how many sheep were expected. A returned bulla sent by the
purchaser could tell the owner what price was paid. The bulla could be conveyed
by the shepherd, even though he might be of suspect trustworthiness; an example
of secure trusted communication through an unsecured channel.
|