At 07:56 AM 01/24/2003 -0500, Bob Hettinga wrote:
http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/grijpink.html
There's some interesting discussion about the ability of the
Dutch legal culture to provide useful tools for regulating transactions
in anonymous or semi-anonymous environments - if you can't find
The tragic part is that there are alternatives. There are several
lock designs that turn out to resist this threat, including master
rings and bicentric locks. While these designs aren't perfect, they
I think it is worth pointing out that, while master ring systems (and
master-keyed
My message was not a reply to Matt's paper.
It was a reply to a message that said, approximately, If I wanted to
SECURE A BUILDING the first thing I would do is worry about the LOCK and
replace it with an electric lock... It did NOT say If I wanted to
SECURE A LOCK
My reply was to point out
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB1043436716535021744,00.html
The New York Times
January 27, 2003
EU Privacy Authorities Seek
Changes in Microsoft
'Passport'
By BRANDON MITCHENER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL
BRUSSELS -- European privacy authorities this week will
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Faust wrote:
Bribe a guard, go to bed with a person with access etc..
However, that is not the proper domain of a study of rights amplification.
I'm actually not sure of that. I think that an organized
case-by-case study of social engineering breaches would
be valuable
The widespread acceptance of something as obviously a bad idea as
passport really bothers me. I could see a password manager program
to automate the process of password invalidation where you discovered
a compromise; but the idea of putting everything you do online on the
same password or
but the idea of putting everything you do online on the
same password or credential is just... stupid beyond belief.
Liberty is architected to be federated, unlike Passport.
/r$
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2129337,00.html
Microsoft has dropped the code name of its controversial
security technology, Palladium, in favor of this buzzword-
bloated tongue twister: next-generation secure computing
[Moderator's note: I think this is slipping from relevance... --Perry]
Faust wrote:
Here's a little story: this week I learned that one of our valuable
security doctoral candidates doesn't vote, and doesn't want to learn
about or discuss politics and the political implications of what she
I worte -
implemented?), and 3-4 orders is not that big of a magnitude.
I take that back. When considering cost, 3-4 orders of magnitude is
important.
--Anton
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending
10 matches
Mail list logo