On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 12:47:45AM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> Actually there are already companies doing something like this

Which ones do you think are doing a decent job of this?

> but they've
> run into a problem that no-one has ever considered so far: The GTCYM needs a
> (relatively) high-bandwidth connection to a remote server, and there's no easy
> way to do this.
> (Hint: You can't use anything involving USB because many corporates lock down
> USB ports to prevent data leaking onto other corporates' networks, or
> conversely to prevent other corporates' data leaking onto their networks. Same
> for Ethernet, Firewire, ...).

Lock USB down completely, or block most devices and allow approved
ones?  There is a non-empty set folks doing the latter, which opens
the possibility of this type of device being permitted, while others
are restricted.

Since *all* it needs is the ability to call "home" to its server, and
register to send/receive messages, it will not look like mass-storage,
and should not look like a network interface. Data leakage should not
be a concern if the device is built/marketted correctly.


The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to