[trustable-software] Is 'safe + secure' equivalent to 'trustable', or a subset?

trustable at panic.fluff.org trustable at panic.fluff.org
Thu Nov 24 09:30:33 UTC 2016


Colin,
>
> If I ran that by the academics at Nottingham University we've been working
> with, I suspect they would say that this equates to "reliable" and not
> "trustable".
>
> If comes back to the ladder example - I can test its behaviour, and look at
> the supply of materials to judge quality.   This (academically) means it's
> reliable.
> To become (academically) trustable, there need to be some form of commitment
> to the person trusting it.
>
> I make be barking up an academic cul-de-sac, and this is not the common use
> parlance other perceive.
>
   So I think you ladder example is very useful. It clarifies the approach.
   I agree that a tests are there to make things "reliable"

   However, difference I'm trying to point out is the "Chain of Custody"
   for the tests is what makes it "trustable"

   The ability to forensically reconstruct how the tests were put together
   and the intentions of their operation as well as the result is what
   makes this "trustable"

   Following you ladder example, I would encourage anyone to test a ladder 
before stepping upon it. But some vendors of ladders are more "trustable"
than others because the test they make during the construction and 
deployment of the ladder have a better "chain of custody" and the "intent" 
of those test to demonstrate "reliabily" are clearer.


   Does that help ?
 	Edmund


-- 
========================================================================
Edmund J. Sutcliffe                     Thoughtful Solutions; Creatively
<edmunds at panic.fluff.org>               Implemented and Communicated
<http://panic.fluff.org>                +44 (0) 7976 938841




More information about the trustable-software mailing list