> Software-based attacks are redistributable. Once I write a program
> that hacks a computer, I can give that program to anyone to use. I
> can even give it to everyone, and then anyone could use it. The
> expertise necessary can be abstracted away into a program even my
> mother could use.
>
>
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Rick Wash wrote:
> Hardware-based attacks cannot be redistributed. If I figure out how
> to hack my system, I can post instructions on the web but it still
> requires techinical competence on your end if you want to hack your
> system too.
>
> While this doesn't help a whole
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:52:16PM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> So they disclaim in the talk announce that Palladium is not intended
> to be secure against hardware attacks:
>
> | "Palladium" is not designed to provide defenses against
> | hardware-based attacks that originate from someone in control
At 4:52 PM +0100 10/22/02, Adam Back wrote:
Remote attestation does indeed require Palladium to be secure against
the local user.
However my point is while they seem to have done a good job of
providing software security for the remote attestation function, it
seems at this point that hardware s
Remote attestation does indeed require Palladium to be secure against
the local user.
However my point is while they seem to have done a good job of
providing software security for the remote attestation function, it
seems at this point that hardware security is laughable.
So they disclaim in t
