Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The right type of trust for distributed systems

Open access
Jøsang, Audun·1996·Proceedings of the 1996 workshop on New security paradigms - NSPW '96

Abstract

Research in information security has traditionally focused on where to place or how to propagate trust.In that sense, a cyptographic algorithm or protocol is simply a mechanism to transfer trust from where it exists to where it is needed.This paper puts the focus on trust itself and shows that it is a very complex concept with many interesting and important implications.We do not attempt to define a formal trust model, but rather examine the types of trust and trust relationships which are relevant for information security.It is shown that the existence of trust as a phenomenon depends on the existence of malicious behaviour.This observation leads to the distinction between passionate entities with human-like capabilities, and rational entities which basically are systems.Dust can then be defined as the belief that a rational entity will resist malicious manipulation or that a passionate entity will behave without malicious intent.It is also shown that trust relationships exhibit a great diversity, that they are based on knowledge and that they contain aspects in common with stmtegy games.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/304851.304877

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Jøsang, A.
Venue
Proceedings of the 1996 workshop on New security paradigms - NSPW '96
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1996
Pages
119-131
OpenAlex
W2172085742
Cited by
314
References
0
FWCI
14.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The right type of trust for distributed systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/304851.304877
The paper
Jøsang, A. (1996). The right type of trust for distributed systems. Proceedings of the 1996 workshop on New security paradigms - NSPW '96. https://doi.org/10.1145/304851.304877

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.