Difference between revisions of "Corroborated"
From MgmtWiki
(→Problem) |
(→Full Title or Meme) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Full Title or Meme== | ==Full Title or Meme== | ||
| − | A hypothesis is [[Corroborated]] if some series of tests can confirm the | + | A hypothesis is [[Corroborated]] if some series of tests can confirm the hypothesis about a [[Subject]]'s [[Identity]]. |
==Context== | ==Context== | ||
Revision as of 09:02, 27 August 2018
Full Title or Meme
A hypothesis is Corroborated if some series of tests can confirm the hypothesis about a Subject's Identity.
Context
- The Context in which a corroboration of Identity applies is typically during the Authorization of access by a Subject to a Resource.
- One detail that may need corroboration is the quality of Attestation of the protection offered to User Credentials by a User Agent.
Problem
Popper nicely described the problem in this way[1]
Instead of discussing the 'probability' of a hypothesis we should try to asses what tests, what trials, it has withstood; that is, we should try to assess how far it has been able to prove its fitness to survive by standing up to tests. In brief, we should try to assess how fart it has been Corroborated.
Solution
The article "Bayesian Identity Proofing" offers one statistical method of incrementally corroborating a User prior to Authorization.
