Jason Cunliffe wrote:
> Well perhaps I should be clearer. I was not exactly advocating this. Just > pointing out that perhaps the best security is quite off the radar of > expected strategy. There is plenty in life beyond the world of packet > sniffers. But ultimately the information must be transferred in some way. While the example you give below - splitting the message over two or more carriers - is partially effective given a single point of weakness, it does not lead to a secure P2P solution any more than me sending someone an email, a text message and P2P message to get the message across. If you have multiple points at which the information could be picked up - someone has bugged the room you had coffee in, your phone is tapped and the P2P protocol has been cracked - then you may as well have sent the whole thing in the open anyway. > obfuscated modular software is another example. This is a good read on this subject: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~boaz/Papers/obfuscate.html http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~boaz/Papers/obfuscate.ps "On the (Im)possibility of Obfuscating Programs" Chris -- .------{ http://www.starforge.co.uk }-----. .--------------------------. =[ Explorer2260, Designer and Coder \=\ P: TexMaker, ROACH, site \ =[___You_will_obey_your_corporate_masters___]==[ Stack: EETmTmTRRSS------ ] -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
