Glenn, Thanks for your reply. My response:
Most of your argument below does not get to the heart of the issue. It seems to be an issue of semantics. You do not like the term Virtual Trust. You write: >Many of us have argued for at least decades now that more trustworthy systems and >more trustworthy evidence for the parties to a transaction not being fooled about the >identity of their correspondents enables more kinds of business. It seems that you already agree with our thesis: authentication and other security mechanisms enable business. I might add: if true, it now appears that prior efforts to describe authentication as a means to enable business have not made much headway. It does not appear to be common knowledge amongst information security professionals. Perhaps you will find some benefit in supporting the current effort to explain security as a business enabler. Thank you for your comments. Ken >I see no value in suddenly starting to use a term "virtual trust" for >trust given due to evidence produced over wires as opposed to trust given >due to evidence produced by other means. > >Trust and the validity of evidence to justify it are meaningful. A new candidate >buzzword for a concept that has been around for a long time does not. > >Many of us have argued for at least decades now that more trustworthy systems and >more trustworthy evidence for the parties to a transaction not being fooled about the >identity of their correspondents enables more kinds of business. However I see nothing >virtual about the trust that is needed. Seems to me it must be real trust, ultimately >validated by real evidence or statistics showing it is properly granted, whether granted >by a person or an automaton. Whether a human or an automaton evaluates evidence for >identity, either must use similar statistics to validate their choices and either will >probably perform better given more and more varied evidence. If you build your authentication >systems so that available evidence is excluded, shame on you. But this observation was published >at least 14 years back, probably further, and depends on there being real trust, real >evidence, and real ways to tell (at least statistically) whether it is being conferred >justly. I suspect efforts to separate them obscure rather than elucidate. > >Glenn Everhart _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
