[33292] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Crypto to defend chip IP: snake oil or good idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Sun Jul 30 22:08:30 2006
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:33:20 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <44CAE5EA.5000700@garlic.com>
from long ago and far away ....
From: lynn
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:13:42 -0800
Subject: Re: a smartcard of a different color
The USB chip is starting to come up higher on peoples' radar ... bunch
of discussion was kicked off by this posting.
the NACHA announcement talks about not absolutely requiring chip for
the signing ... however that means that they can't tell whether it was
chipped signed or not.
Within the AADS infrastructure, it can be a stand-alone AADS chip
(possibly in as few as 20,000 circuits compared to several hundred
thousand to tens of million circuits for the smartbrick chips).
Not only can the AADS chip definition be used for ubiquitous
authentication purposes ... but it is trivial to include such a small
chip in almost any kind of package ... either as a seperate chip (say
in a card, USB housing or corner of a PDA or cellphone) ... or in the
corner of a more complex chip (pentium, k7, strongarm, etc).
In principle, it is technical possible for the same AADS function/chip
to be used for digital signing (and authenticating) multiple X9.59
debit&credit accounts, ISP internet login, corporate intranet login,
webserver access, and business process access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
