> Also, a logical fallacy: Since X could sometimes be used to thwart Y, then
> Y is useless in all cases.
i think the correct statement of the thinking (or
at least my thinking) is
we want to assert X, but
since Y defeats X, we require !Y to assert X.
in something closer to english, the assertion is that
if one requires a secure server, you've got to have physical
security. since there are too many easy ways to circumvent
most known security measures given physical access.
i don't think this assertion has anything to say about
console locking, just that it doesn't solve the stated problem—
execepting, of course, if the data on non-volatile storage is
is encrypted and the key is lost on reboot.
- erik
