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