On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Jerry Leichter <leich...@lrw.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, make it significantly smaller than the current form factor. >> >> Ah. OK, well, that is certainly doable, though how small you can make it is >> ultimately limited by the size of the display. How small do you want it, >> and how much are you willing to pay? > I wonder if one could get rid of the display per se and add some kind of MEMS > steerable laser to it. The output would be projected onto some nearby > surface. This could be physically much smaller. Hm, that is an interesting idea. But I think it’s a little more than I want to bite off for version 1. > In another message, you suggested using a passphrase to unlock the thing, so > even decapping wouldn't reveal the secrets. That requires a secure input > device. Only if you have an adversary that pwns your client machine *and* then obtains physical control of the device. For either of these attacks in isolation, a non-secure input suffices. > Going all the way to a virtual keyboard might do the trick. The keyboard > doesn't have to be very good, just functional for this one purpose. > > Of course, this would add significantly to cost, though the one I listed > above only costs $40. What size you could end up with isn't clear. I’m not trying to protect against every conceivable attack, I’m just trying to design an 80/20 solution (actually I think what I have is closer to a 99/1 solution, but it’s early yet). One must always keep Munroe’s law in mind: https://xkcd.com/538/ rg _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
