Alexander Klimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what kind of threat models does it address, and what does that say about
the kinds of customers who'd want it?
One threat model (or at least failure mode) that's always concerned me deeply
about QC is that you have absolutely no way of checking
* Jerry Leichter:
OK, I could live with that as stated. But:
The code also adds: We reserve the right to request access to
your computer or device in order to verify that you have taken
all reasonable steps to protect your computer or device and
safeguard your
Leichter, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All your data belong to us. From Computerworld.
Trusted Computing Group turns attention to storage
I think it's more like There must be some business case for these things
somewhere, surely. Let's try a breadth-first search
David G. Koontz [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is *not* a power play by banks, the Trilateral Commission, or the Gnomes
of Zurich. It is the first echo of a financial thunderclap. As, oddly, I
said only yesterday, I think that big ticket Internet transactions have
become inadvisable and will become more so. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Gutmann) writes:
(The usage model is that you do the UI portion on the PC, but
perform the actual transaction on the external device, which has a
two-line LCD display for source and destination of transaction,
amount, and purpose of the transaction. All
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Gutmann) writes:
(The usage model is that you do the UI portion on the PC, but
perform the actual transaction on the external device, which has a
two-line LCD display for source and destination of transaction,
amount, and
Peter Gutmann wrote:
(The usage model is that you do the UI portion on the PC, but perform the
actual transaction on the external device, which has a two-line LCD display
for source and destination of transaction, amount, and purpose of the
transaction. All communications enter and leave the
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Leichter, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All your data belong to us. From Computerworld.
Trusted Computing Group turns attention to storage
I think it's more like There must be some business case for these things
somewhere, surely. Let's try a breadth-first
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm27.htm#31 The bank fraud blame game
slight addendas ...
1) EU finread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#finread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#assurance
one of the issues that we looked at early on in x9.59 standard ... somewhat
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jerry Leichter:
OK, I could live with that as stated. But:
The code also adds: We reserve the right to request access to
your computer or device in order to verify that you have taken
all reasonable steps to protect your computer or device and
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:08:12AM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
|
| Given that all you need for this is a glorified pocket calculator, you could
| (in large enough quantities) probably get it made for $10, provided you shot
| anyone who tried to introduce product-deployment DoS mechanisms like
Ian G wrote:
Unfortunately for the banks, there is a vast body of evidence that we
knew and they knew or should have known that the PC was insecure [1].
So, by fielding a system -- online commerce -- with a known weakness,
they took responsibility for the fraud (from all places).
re:
Adam Shostack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:08:12AM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Given that all you need for this is a glorified pocket calculator,
you could (in large enough quantities) probably get it made for
$10, provided you shot anyone who tried to introduce
13 matches
Mail list logo
