i guess it's appropriate that the world's deepest
hole is next to something labelled a "trust territory" :)
--Sean
:)
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTEC
I'm genuinely sorry, but I couldn't resist this...
At 12:35 PM -0400 on 8/11/02, Sean Smith wrote:
> Actually, our group at Dartmouth has an NSF "Trusted Computing"
> grant to do this, using the IBM 4758 (probably with a different
> OS) as the hardware.
>
> We've been calling the project "Maria
Actually, our group at Dartmouth has an NSF "Trusted Computing"
grant to do this, using the IBM 4758 (probably with a different
OS) as the hardware.
We've been calling the project "Marianas", since it involves a chain of
islands.
--Sean
>If only there were a technology in which clients coul
AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be sure and send a note to the Gnutella people reminding them of all
> you're doing for them, okay, Lucky?
Do the Gnutella people share your feelings on this matter? I'd be
surprised.
--
__ Paul Crowley
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/\__/ http://www.ci
AARG!Anonymous wrote:
> I will just point out that it was not my idea, but rather that Salon
> said that the Gnutella developers were considering moving to authorized
> clients. According to Eric, those developers are "fundamentally stupid."
> According to Bram, the Gnutella developers don't und
On Friday, Aug 9, 2002, at 13:05 US/Eastern, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
> If only... Luckily the cypherpunks are doing all they can to make sure
> that no such technology ever exists. They will protect us from being
> able
> to extend trust across the network. They will make sure that any open
> n
Anonymous wrote:
> As far as Freenet and MojoNation, we all know that the latter shut down,
> probably in part because the attempted traffic-control mechanisms made
> the whole network so unwieldy that it never worked.
Right, so let's solve this problem. Palladium/TCPA solves the problem
in one
Wow, this conversation has been fun. Thanks, Anonymous Aarg, for
taking up the unpopular side of the debate. I'll spare any question
about motives.
I think most of us would agree that having a trusted computing
environment makes some interesting things possible. Smartcards,
afterall, are more or
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:25:40 -0700
> From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Right, as if my normal style has been so effective. Not one person has
> given me the least support in my efforts to explain the truth about TCPA
> and Palladium.
Hal, I think you were right on when you wrote:
TCPA and Palladium are content control for the masses. They
are an attempt to encourage the public to confuse the public
interest issues of content control with the private interest
issues of privacy and security.
Seth Johnson
--
[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.htm
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:25:40PM -0700, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
> Several people have objected to my point about the anti-TCPA efforts of
> Lucky and others causing harm to P2P applications like Gnutella.
The point that a number of people made is that what is said in the
article is not workable:
Several people have objected to my point about the anti-TCPA efforts of
Lucky and others causing harm to P2P applications like Gnutella.
Eric Murray wrote:
> Depending on the clients to "do the right thing" is fundamentally
> stupid.
Bran Cohen agrees:
> Before claiming that the TCPA, which is f
At 1:03 AM +0200 on 8/10/02, Some anonymous, and now apparently
innumerate, idiot in my killfile got himself forwarded to Mr. Leitl's
cream of cypherpunks list:
> They will protect us from being able
> to extend trust across the network.
As Dan Geer and Carl Ellison have reminded us on these li
Antonomasia wrote:
> My copy of "Peer to Peer" (Oram, O'Reilly) is out on loan but I think
> Freenet and Mojo use protocols that require new users to be
> contributors before they become consumers. (Leaving aside that
> Gnutella seems doomed on scalability grounds.)
Freenet and Mojo Nation have
Anonymous wrote:
> ... the file-trading network Gnutella is being threatened by
> misbehaving clients. In response, the developers are looking at limiting
> the network to only authorized clients:
This is the wrong solution. One of the important factors in the
Internet's growth was that the IE
From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An article on Salon this morning (also being discussed on slashdot),
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/08/gnutella_developers/print.html,
> discusses how the file-trading network Gnutella is being threatened by
> misbehaving clients. In respon
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
< ... />
> Not discussed in the article is the technical question of how this can
> possibly work. If you issue a digital certificate on some Gnutella
> client, what stops a different client, an unauthorized client, from
> pretending to be the legitim
AARG!Anonymous wrote:
> If only there were a technology in which clients could verify and yes,
> even trust, each other remotely. Some way in which a digital certificate
> on a program could actually be verified, perhaps by some kind of remote,
> trusted hardware device. This way you could know
18 matches
Mail list logo
