> ENTI- can you enter, ORI (or ORIZ) what can you do?
I don't mean to quarrel about it, but I understood Authentication to be closer to identification. To provide "adequate proof that you are actually who you claim to be".
Even the "can you enter" question falls under authorization; "does the user have appropriate permissions?" Entering is just one of perhaps many subsequent levels of permissions.
I think you've got the right idea, though in practice the initial "authentication" question (you are who you say you are) is very closely linked to the initial "authorization" evaluation (can you enter).... because in most systems the only "can you enter" authorization required for access is in fact that you are who you say you are.
But not all systems work this way. There are some systems where you can log in successfully, but then are immediately escorted out because the "can you enter" question has secondary considerations or is decided once identity has been established based on a larger criteria. Expired accounts in some systems work exactly like this.
One problem is that treating authentication as a "can you enter" authorization is predicated on the idea of a session-based system with two states, logged in or logged out. But there are many scenarios where e.g. taking some particular action requires authn and authz, regardless of login status. A simple example is performing some destructive action.
The distinction between authentication and authorization allows modeling of many different kind of systems, including the degenerate case where identification is treated as a proxy for authorization.
Btw, the kind of thinking behind that degenerate case is what leads to IDOR security bugs - "this person is logged in, so they can access whatever the URL says... even if it's another customer's data!" It turns out that thinking clearly about security helps be more secure, and unfortunately, vice versa.
Right. The de facto/apparent case that many users encounter shouldn't be considered the correct mental model or implementation pattern... it just explains why some people see it that way.
Not long ago I designed an authentication system which had to be disconnected from authorization pretty fully. The authentication was global in a multi-tenanted system, but access to any tenant was authorized at the tenant level (as well as all other authorization concerns). To be fair, there was some global authorization concerns, but the vast majority of authorizing actions, including tenant access was governed at the tenant level after authentication.
It turns out there are several similar services offered in the UK by ISP's like O2, Sky, and BT¹ (recently rebranded as EE-WiFi²) who claim to be the UK's largest WiFi Hotspot Network. Perhaps that's due to it being opt-out on their routers since it was first introduced over a decade ago.
This is actually hotspot rollouts as far as I know though? You dont see BT/EE wifi networks everywhere, particularly not where you'd expect to see a concentration like residential streets / buildings with this kind of system, mainly see BT / O2 hotspots in public spaces like train stations + event spaces.
Tbf may just be less monopolisation of broadband making it more sparse, but they actually have a map of hotspots on that site which implies they are intentionally placed.
Before people were getting fired in AI chats or Video calls, they were getting fired by voicemail - as featured in the track "Exciting New Direction"[0], by The New Deal.
Better still, if Unix time tracked TAI (monotonically increasing every SI second), and Leap Seconds were handled in a distributed database much like time zones - possibly even the same one we all use anyway.
That paper was published in 2014. The reference Opus encoder has certainly had a number of improvements that affect sound quality since then, whereas very few AAC implementations have.
> The reference Opus encoder has certainly had a number of improvements that affect sound quality since then…
Yes, but not for high-bitrate music applications.¹ For example, Opus 1.2 really improved the quality of music encoding at 32–48 kbps. Opus doesn't have to be great at everything to be great at what it does, just like AAC-LC doesn't have to be. (¹Opus 1.6's experimental Opus HD looks very promising for this!)
Apple's and Fraunhofer's closed-source AAC-LC encoders have seen regular, minor quality tuning, and they benefit from the research and engineering work that have been done for the AAC family of encoders (HE-AAC for bitrates down to ~48 kbps, HE-AAC v2 to 32 kbps, xHE-AAC below that).
Heh, "funrollloops" reminds me of recompiling FreeBSD 4 on my thinkpad back in the early aughts. The word made me imagine some sort of processed breakfast cereal with too many additives.
(Edit: hmm, without the "https://" it seems to depend on the browsers ability to recognise a URL.)
reply