From: Dave Aitel (dave.aitelgmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 22 2008 - 07:03:28 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

For TQBF and similar food people who twitter about cooking but should be
twittering about chemistry like this: :>
"Why Fries Taste So Good"
http://www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm

CSI is a big conference - aimed not towards hackers but to IT managers.
Nevertheless it's interesting to gauge the speakers on their personalities
sometimes more than their tech. Steve Hanna [1], while ostensibly talking
about trusted computing seemed upset at the current US administration's
choices for the use of technology, which was an undercurrent in the
conference (held in DC). But not having a global PKI system (a.k.a.
Palladium, NGTGB, or Trusted Computing, the group Steve works on) is a good
way to make sure governments or large corporations don't abuse it, you know?
After that he went on to say that even with Trusted Computing, NAC still has
an important place for access control, which seemed to veer into confusing
all the OSI layers. If you can literally cryptographically attest to the
code running on a workstation, why do you need network access control?

And I don't understand why you need a trusted computing chip if you decide
to trust your hypervisor in the first place. Trusting the hypervisor instead
of a public key on a chip from Dell makes a lot more sense. It's more
configurable in a user-friendly way, and less configurable in a RIAA/Big
Brother friendly way.

-dave

[1]
http://www.networkworld.com/power/2006/122506-most-powerful-people-hanna.html

_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydavelists.immunitysec.com
http://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]