I'm sorry, what exactly was your proposal? Was it the technet article? I didnt read it.
-- Espi On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > So, what's wrong with my proposal? You didn't address that anywhere, > unless I've missed it somehow. > > > > (leaving aside the issue of traditional lock picking, which has been an > issue, or non-issue, for years) > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Thursday, 31 July 2014 1:34 PM > > *To:* ntsysadm > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] This was inevitable, but it's still a good > reminder > > > > I'm referring specifically to the standard types of keys that are used by > consumers for thier private property. Current common door locks/keys are > decreasingly viable as a security solution, and have been for years. If a > common key can now be duplicated via automation simply by a series of > pictures, then its really time to put this antiquated system to rest. Keys > need to become more complex. Its not that I have issue with the concept of > physical keys - its a problem with the low-tech variations of common locks > that are still so prevalent around the world. > > "Authentication" issues aside, the typical mechanical systems are still > not complex enough to prevent basic lock-picking methods. And now, we are > subject to duplication by photograph? I think this is a horrendous turn of > events. Cool tech, but how utterly exploitable on a massive scale. People > are already subject to video-based types of identity theft. Now, I would > speculate, that we can welcome breaking and entering. > > > -- > Espi > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why do they "have to go"? Keys are a physical authenticator (something > you have). You give it to someone else, and you run the risk of it being > cloned or otherwise compromised. A simple solution would be not to give > your keys out to untrusted parties... > > > > I think the fundamental issues with using current keys is that there's no > separation between identity and authenticator. Just like using your CC > number online: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512578.aspx > is an old article, but still applies. Not to mention the lack of simple > revocation mechanisms, audit capabilities etc. J > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Thursday, 31 July 2014 11:11 AM > *To:* ntsysadm > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] This was inevitable, but it's still a good > reminder > > > > It was inevitable. Locks and keys as they have existed for decades simply > have to go. > > > -- > Espi > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Physical security is just as important as computing security > http://www.wired.com/2014/07/keyme-let-me-break-in/ > > > > >
