On 3/01/12 09:06 AM, lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
I'd like to add to this conversation, as a side note, that a new type of security has (fairly) recently emerged: legal security. "It's illegal to break in, so we don't need security".
Right. But it needs to be a break in, not a trespass. So there needs to be a security method to be broken -- no matter how weak.
From what I recall of this, there needs to be a reasonable notice and a security system for the breaking of. This is why WAP, etc, works ... because it is a security system, and even though it can be broken with a boltcutter, it's illegal to break in. So the end result is that you can commit the crime, and you'll leave your trails, and you'll be in jurisdiction.
Quite common in convenience stores, people's homes and now, the Internet. Some will find that this sort of security sucks. That it doesn't protect them very well. They won't care though, because even though the window was open, no one should've entered.
It somewhat depends on who the attacker is. If they are law-abiding citizens and they happen to be in the same jurisdiction, a legal mechanism works reasonably well. Indeed, if one of them is true, it can help.
This also happens to align well with online banks which only permit transfers inside the country. As the mule who receives the money has done so without permission, she has participated in fraud and the money can be yanked right back out again. (Never mind that she already sent the money to another jurisdiction...)
The thing is, just because a security mechanism doesn't seem to translate to technological space doesn't mean it doesn't have legs.
iang _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
