Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?

Subject: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
From: Bridget Gordan <bridget -dot- gordan -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Monique Semp <monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:11:12 -0400

Two-person integrity.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Monique Semp <monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>
wrote:

> Possible candidates we found and are
>>
> commonly used are "dual control" and "two-person rule", but these are not
> as accurate, because in every definition I could find (for example,
>
> http://www.theserverside.com/report/Integration-of-User-Control-Mechanisms-into-Secure-Critical-Applications
> ), they refer to two users who have the same privileges to perform an
> action, but can only do so together. In our setup, this is not the case,
> one of the users is who performs the action, and the other approves that.
>
> Not the answer you're looking for, but perhaps related enough that you
> could find the appropriate term: a standard phrase for requiring that a
> certain number of users, out of a bigger pool of authorized users, be
> available to authorize an operation is "M of N".
>
> References: http://www.certiguide.com/secplus/cg_sp_4571MofNControl.htm
> and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_distribution.
>
> I understand that "M of N" is not what you're talking about. But perhaps a
> surf/google along the lines of "authorization methods", "authentication
> methods", "authorization control", or "access control" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control) would uncover the mechanism
> that you're describing.
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) |
> http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as bridget -dot- gordan -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?: From: Robert Fekete
Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?: From: Monique Semp

Previous by Author: Re: mysterious white line in table rows
Next by Author: Re: Acrobat Pro versus Acrobat Standard?
Previous by Thread: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Next by Thread: Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads