Well, I'm tired of this. AARG, or whoever is hiding behind this pseudonym, is obviously not reading the responses that I send, as he keeps asking questions I already answered. I'm not going to waste more of my time responding to this. This is my last post in this thread.
Have Fun! Niels At 00:00 17/09/02 -0700, AARG! Anonymous wrote: >Niels Ferguson writes: > >> Like I said before, most of the Pd stuff is really welcome. Everything >> except the secure chip is a great improvement, and long overdue. My >> observation is that the secure chip is only needed to do DRM, and that >> trying to sell it to the public under the 'we need more security' banner is >> bogus. > >I will respond more tomorrow, but just to clarify: you can't think of >any situation in the banking example where it would be useful for the >server to have confidence that the client is running legitimate software? >This would add no security to any form of distributed banking software? > >And more generally, you can't think of any application, other than DRM, >where it would be useful for a server to have some assurance that a >remote system was running a particular piece of software? Nothing at all? > >It's funny how people have different blind spots. Microsoft supposedly >can't think of any way to use Pd for DRM and yet Lucky Green comes up >with several methods without even trying. Turn the tables, and the >greatest cryptographic minds in the field can't come up with good uses >for secure attestation, but an ordinary guy like me comes up with a >handful while walking the dog. > > ============================================================== Niels Ferguson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: +31 20 463 0977 PGP: 3EC2 3304 9B6E 27D9 72E7 E545 C1E0 5D7E --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]