On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:32:37AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:17:18 +1100, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:34, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> The problems associated with them aren't too terribly different > >> from those associated with keys or other forms of physical > >> security, notably, that they can be stolen, or the output from them > >> duplicated. > > > Using a smart-card means that logging in does not merely require > > "something you know" but also "something you have". All the good > > security guides say that security should depend on "something you > > know and something you have", smart-cards plus a password meets this > > criteria. > > An even better security guideline is "something you are" -- so > should we not spring for retinal scanners/fingerprint readers/other > buiometrics? I mean, we _are_ talking about other peoples money. :P > > > > GPG smart-cards are entering the market. If GPG is crackable then > > we have lost regardless. If GPG is secure then GPG smart-cards will > > do as long as they are not stolen. Having revokation proceedures > > for stolen cards and DD's reliable enough to follow them should deal > > with this. > > Laptops with biometric print readers are supposed to be around > the horizon as well.
So let's get one such sponsored for every DD ? Friendly, Sven Luther