Bart.Lansing_at_kohls.com wrote:
> It occurs to me that your solution is flawed as well. What assurance do
> we have that your "protected storage" is future-proof (i.e. unbreachable
> by an means whatsoever)?
It doesn't have to be unbreachable by any means whatsoever, it has to be
unbreachable from a remote location. This is easy to accomplish by not
connecting the protected storage to a network interface.
The box can still be owned by an attacker who gains physical access to
the device, but so what? The protected storage will never be owned by a
JPEG and the CPU will never ignore its built-in machine code
authentication logic because it would not be implemented in software or
firmware.
Regards,
Jason Coombs
jasonc_at_science.org
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Received on Aug 01 2005
Intro
