, March 20, 2013 6:41 AM
>Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
>
>Two points...
>
>(1) Remember that when IBM invented CCA back in the late 1980s, there really
>were no other HSMs - thus, there were no other crypto architectures in the
>banking world to
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>(as an aside, after power-on/test sequence ... those circuits get destroyed).
Destroyed after such sequence? I'm having trouble swallowing your statement. ;-D
If you, for example, do that in the factory just to test it out before shipping
to the customer, it is destr
e is the Racal/Thales offering. Many still use the
> term generically.
>
> =
> =
> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:41:54 -0400
> > From: zedgarhoo...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> &g
jayare...@hotmail.com (J R) writes:
> Correct. Hardware Security Module is the more generic term.
>
> Host Security Module is the Racal/Thales offering. Many still use the term
> generically.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#1 IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tub
Correct. Hardware Security Module is the more generic term.
Host Security Module is the Racal/Thales offering. Many still use the term
generically.
=
=
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:41:54 -0400
> From: zedgarhoo...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
HARDWARE Security Module.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, J R wrote:
> Host Security Module.
> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:52:04 -0500
> > From: elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
> > Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.
Host Security Module.
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:52:04 -0500
> From: elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
> Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> Todd Arnold wrote:
>
> > no other HSMs -
> > vendor's HSM arch
Todd Arnold wrote:
> no other HSMs -
> vendor's HSM architecture,
What is HSM in this context?
Of course, I searched before posting, but found over 270 ambiguous
definitions...
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
--
For
Two points...
(1) Remember that when IBM invented CCA back in the late 1980s, there really
were no other HSMs - thus, there were no other crypto architectures in the
banking world to be "compatible" with. I suppose other vendors who came along
and developed HSMs could have adopted CCA, but th
there were "systems"
outside of those by IBM that supported what I might call "CCA conforming
sharing of keys".
>
> From: Phil Smith
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:43 PM
>Subject: Re: IBM Mainf
Thanks. I had assume "common" to mean that it was common across vendors.
Apparently it is common only across IBM platforms.
>
> From: Todd Arnold
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:32 PM
>Subject: Re: IBM
Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>I don't mean the applications that use it, but rather the implementations of
>CCA itself. I've only found ICSF and CCA for Linux on IBM System z.
>Since CCA is meant to be "common" I was wondering if it was implemented by
>anyone outside of IBM itself.
Ah. I don't see th
> I've only found ICSF and CCA for Linux on IBM System z.
> Since CCA is meant to be "common" I was wondering if it was implemented by
> anyone outside of IBM itself.
I don't know of any non-IBM products that are designed to support CCA, but it
is common to all the IBM platforms. You've apparen
> From: Phil Smith
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:56 PM
>Subject: Re: IBM Mainframe (1980's) on You tube
>
>Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>This reminds me of something I've wondered. Are they any non-IBM products
>&g
Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>This reminds me of something I've wondered. Are they any non-IBM products
>that support the Common Cryptographic Architecture?
Define "support". Lots of products use ICSF. Lots of products use various
CCA-provided services, on various platforms.
So...what do you really
This reminds me of something I've wondered. Are they any non-IBM products that
support the Common Cryptographic Architecture?
>
> From: Todd Arnold
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:42 AM
>Subject: Re: IBM M
arno...@us.ibm.com (Todd Arnold) writes:
> IBM had three channel-attached crypto units for the mainframes.
>
> 1977 – IBM 3845 DES encryption unit
>
> 1979 – IBM 3848 DES encryption unit - faster than the 3845, and added
> Triple-DES
>(yes, IBM already had Triple-DES in its products in 1979!)
Todd Arnold wrote:
IBM had three channel-attached crypto units for the mainframes.
>1977 - IBM 3845 DES encryption unit
>1979 - IBM 3848 DES encryption unit - faster than the 3845, and added
>Triple-DES
> (yes, IBM already had Triple-DES in its products in 1979!)
>1989 - IBM Transaction Secur
IBM had three channel-attached crypto units for the mainframes.
1977 – IBM 3845 DES encryption unit
1979 – IBM 3848 DES encryption unit - faster than the 3845, and added Triple-DES
(yes, IBM already had Triple-DES in its products in 1979!)
1989 – IBM Transaction Security System (TSS) which in
19 matches
Mail list logo
