[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device
- From: patrickl@xxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:01:46 -0000
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
--- In ukha_d@y..., "James Hoye" <james.hoye@s...> wrote:
> This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
> a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 3. Do we need an application level checksum to verify the
integrity
> > of each command? This would prevent the use of a simple telnet
> > session to interact with a device (unless it was optional/could
be
> > turned off). Should mis-formatted commands simply be ignored or
>
> What would be neat is some sort of digital signature to guarantee
the
> authenicity of commands/packets. Perhaps this should be catered
for in the
> protocol definition, rather than in the device data itself.
Nice idea. I _think_ a digital signature would have to be mandatory
across all devices to be meaningful security wise which is a bummer
because cross certification is expensive in software terms. An
alternative scheme is to use a trusted proxy arrangement with the
proxy pointing to the outside world which understands
DS/certificates/etc. and trust all devices within your LAN. Of course
if the proxy or LAN is compromised you're buggered.
Patrick
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|