Re: OT: Smartcards and Physical Security
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:17:18 +1100, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> said:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:34, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> wrote:
>> The problems associated with them aren't too terribly different
>> from those associated with keys or other forms of physical
>> security, notably, that they can be stolen, or the output from them
>> duplicated.
> Using a smart-card means that logging in does not merely require
> "something you know" but also "something you have". All the good
> security guides say that security should depend on "something you
> know and something you have", smart-cards plus a password meets this
> criteria.
An even better security guideline is "something you are" -- so
should we not spring for retinal scanners/fingerprint readers/other
buiometrics? I mean, we _are_ talking about other peoples money. :P
> GPG smart-cards are entering the market. If GPG is crackable then
> we have lost regardless. If GPG is secure then GPG smart-cards will
> do as long as they are not stolen. Having revokation proceedures
> for stolen cards and DD's reliable enough to follow them should deal
> with this.
Laptops with biometric print readers are supposed to be around
the horizon as well.
manoj
--
You don't move to Edina, you achieve Edina. Guindon
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: