You know those crackpot ideas that keep showing up in snake oil crypto?
Well, e-postage is snake oil antispam.
While I think this statement may be true for POW coinage, because for a bot
net it grows on trees, for money that traces back to the international
monetary exchange system, it may not be
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Recent research has shown that a new and disturbing form of computer
infection is readily spread: the epidemic copying of malicious code
among wireless routers without the participation of intervening
computers. Such an epidemic could easily
If it comes from the Trusted Computing Group, you can pretty much
assume that it will make your computer *less* trustworthy. Their idea
of a trusted computer is one that random unrelated third parties can
trust to subvert the will of the computer's owner.
John
Multiple responses inline:
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I too would like to hear more information on this, particularly the
crypto that is known to be used on the Edge.
See sections 'Secure Speech Processing' and 'Interoperability' of
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com writes:
Recent research has shown that a new and disturbing form of computer
infection is readily spread: the epidemic copying of malicious code
among wireless routers without the participation of intervening
computers. Such an epidemic could easily strike cities,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Indeed. And don't forget that through the magic of botnets, the bad
guys have vastly more compute power available than the good guys.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any documented
examples of a botnet
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:22:37PM -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
If it comes from the Trusted Computing Group, you can pretty much
assume that it will make your computer *less* trustworthy. Their idea
of a trusted computer is one that random unrelated third parties can
trust to subvert the will
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, John Gilmore wrote:
If it comes from the Trusted Computing Group, you can pretty much
assume that it will make your computer *less* trustworthy. Their idea
of a trusted computer is one that random unrelated third parties can
trust to subvert the will of the computer's
I have a disgustingly simple proposal. It seems to me that one
of the primary reasons why UCE-limiting systems fail is the
astonishing complexity of having a trust infrastructure
maintained by trusted third parties or shared by more than
one user. Indeed, trusted third party and trust shared
On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
I have a disgustingly simple proposal. [Basically, always include a
cryptographic token when you send mail; always require it when you
receive mail.]
There is little effective difference between this an whitelists. If I
only accept mail
Richard Clayton and I claim that PoW doesn't work:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf
I bumped into Cynthia Dwork, who originallyinvented PoW, at a CEAS
meeting a couple of years ago, and she said she doesn't think it
works, either.
R's,
John
Hi. One of the hats I wear is the chair of the Anti-Spam Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force, which is down the virtual
hall from the IETF.
You know how you all feel when someone shows up with his super duper
new unbreakable crypto scheme? Well, that's kind of how I feel here.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ray Dillinger b...@sonic.net wrote:
This is basic digital signatures; it would work.
What's your transition plan? How do you deal with stolen trust
tokens? (Think trojans/worms.)
Also see: http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Thornburg
jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote:
For open-source software encryption (be it swap-space, file-system,
and/or full-disk), the answer is yes: I can assess the developers'
reputations, I can read the source code, and/or I can take note of
what
14 matches
Mail list logo
