[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that your solution is flawed as well. What assurance do we have that your "protected storage" is future-proof (i.e. unbreachable by an means whatsoever)?
It doesn't have to be unbreachable by any means whatsoever, it has to be unbreachable from a remote location. This is easy to accomplish by not connecting the protected storage to a network interface.
The box can still be owned by an attacker who gains physical access to the device, but so what? The protected storage will never be owned by a JPEG and the CPU will never ignore its built-in machine code authentication logic because it would not be implemented in software or firmware.
Regards, Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
