Jan Dobrucki wrote:
> I do have an idea thou. I'm thinking how to implement PGP into car
> locks. And so far I got this: The driver has his PGP, and the door
> has it's own.
Path of least resistance - *access* to the car is generally not the problem.
Instead weaker attacks such as breaking the glass, or forcing the door work much
better. Once inside, a different mechanism again would be needed to prevent the
car from being hotwired. In short, the addition of PGP doesn't particularly
enhance the security, especially if the protocol is still vulnerable to, say,
identity theft (the encryption is useless if somebody just steals the PGP keys).
To steal an idea from the Mary Whitehouse Experience, iirc, car security will be
complete when we can use imaging technology to disguise someone's latest XR3i as
a clapped out Austin MiniMetro*.
Seems that it's just another case of trying to use a buzzword in an unnecessary
solution, making it overly complicated from a user POV, and whilst ignoring the
other fundamental aspects. As has been pointed out a multitude of times,
encryption has its places and uses, most of which will never be the interest,
imho, of the common populace. (Only perhaps on a need-to-use basis, such as SSL.
I doubt pgp mail encrypting will become "natural", or indeed "sexy" to the
sheeple.) And nor should it (have to) be. There are, however, still plenty of
places where the techniques are, or would be, of great benefit.
.g
* Purely for demonstrative purposes only, obviously.
--
"The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong,"
"Sometimes I use Google instead of pants."
http://www.exmosis.net/ 2:254/500.50
