At 09:56 AM 3/2/00 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It is worth noting that some bans on running servers are based on technology,
not the business model of the provider. In IP over cable systems, there is
much less bandwidth available upstream than downstream, and it's much more
expensive to add
At 01:36 PM 3/1/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Of more relevance to this list, perhaps, is yesterday's testimony of the
FBI's Michael Vatis with the bureau's usual crypto-complaints:
Michael was the FBI chief I put on the spot at the '98 RSA conference. He
proudly pitched how the FBI's
At 01:36 PM 9/26/99 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two reasons. First, as you say below, there is simply the reality of
there being multiple systems. Second, and more essential, there are some
important advantages e.g. in efficiency to non-anonymous payment mechanisms.
BTW,
At 10:00 AM 3/25/99 -0800, Eric Murray wrote:
Yow! That doesn't sound like any smart card I know.
Does it have a display and keyboard and run WindowsCE :-)
Currently shipping 7816 cards max out at about 32k of FLASH
for program and data, and a few K of RAM. Most are 8-bit processors
but
At 08:35 AM 3/25/99 -0800, Jurgen Botz wrote:
Yes, I could demand that all my remote users be running NT4.0SP4 with
some additional security patches and have all their services turned
off (or better still, Linux or *BSD configured by my network
engineers), but how am I going to enforce this?
This really is _really_ bad. Finland, Canada, Ireland..all member countries of this arrangement, had previously liberalized their encryption export policies.
Not really too surprising. The U.S. gov't has been pushing for this for some time. This may make things a bit more difficult for some
