Peter Fairbrother <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Peter Gutmann wrote: >> Peter Fairbrother <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Didn't the people who did US/USSR nuclear arms verification do something >>> very similar, except the characterised surface was sparkles in plastic >>> painted on the missile rather than paper? >> >> Yes. The intent was that forging the fingerprint on a warhead should cost as >> much or more than the warhead itself. > >Talking of solving the wrong problem, that's a pretty bad metric - forging >should cost the damage an extra warhead would do, rather than the cost of an >extra warhead. That's got to be in the trillions, rather than a few hundred >thousand for another warhead.
The cost was US$12M per warhead. I think that's sufficient. Peter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]