In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/30/99
at 11:39 AM, Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>> In , on 09/27/99
>>at 03:41 PM, Robert Hettinga <[EMAI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >If you do not trust the crypto processor then you should throw the whole
> >machine out - there are *so* many other ways that IBM could have
> >compromised the system.
>
> So you suggest the h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> In , on 09/27/99
>at 03:41 PM, Robert Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Probably IBM will first want to see how attractive the technology is to
In , on 09/27/99
at 03:41 PM, Robert Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Probably IBM will first want to see how attractive the technology is to
>punters. At least the approach of using an ancillary encryption chip
>should keep IBM safe from the nigh