Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 12:23 AM 1/20/2008, Alexander Klimov wrote:
>>Given what is required to get a license (for example, 4.b in the
>>first document, says that one must have people trained in
>>information security), I guess the new law is not supposed to
>>limit use of cryp
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Yu Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 21, 2008 5:40:26 PM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mycolleagues] MUSIC'08 CFP
(Apologies for multiple copies. Appreciated if you can forward to
potentially interested persons)
===
Threat modelling doesn't just apply to computer security. What happens if
someone decides to pen-test paid parking?
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/01/21/7181075.aspx
It's an interesting read because I'm sure they never anticipated anyone
attacking it at that level.
Peter.
-
List,
I would like to address and request comments on the use of SSL/TLS and port 587
for email security.
The often expressed idea that SSL/TLS and port 587 are somehow able to prevent
warrantless wiretapping and so on, or protect any private communications, is
IMO simply not supported by fac
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6993661
Hat tip to a party who prefers to remain anonymous who sent me the
patent number.
--
Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe
This evening, a friend of mine who shall remain nameless who works for
a large company that regularly processes customer credit card payments
informed me of an interesting fact.
His firm routinely discovers attempted credit card fraud. However,
since there is no way for them to report attempted f