-1
$\begingroup$

In the access control model HRU there is the primitive request destroy object o which is only defined if o is an object in the current protection state which is not a subject. I am interested in why this restriction is necessary/useful.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Basically, because it doesn't make sense in the practical context that they wanted the theory to model. In practice, you can't destroy something that doesn't exist; and we think of subjects as existing forever (you can't destroy them).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But there is also the operation destroy subject. And the thing that I want to destroy exists, but it is additionally to being an object although a subject, which means that destroying it as an object lets it loose its subjectness. (We employ the convention from the original paper that every subject is also an object) $\endgroup$ – Sebastian Bechtel Jun 1 '17 at 17:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.