On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:41:44AM -0600, mathew wrote:
Given that the initial response was patronizing dismissal, I'm not sure
there was any wisdom on offer.
That's because we (for some values of "we") have seen the same thing
proposed many times over. And (speaking for myself only) my perception
is that each new proposal repeats the pattern of overlooking profound,
instrinsic difficulties. That is, these proposals focus on narrow
tactical points while ignoring larger strategic issues or pretending
they don't exist or minimizing their significance.
And in addition: the adversary reads this list and many others.
The adversary is smart, well-funded, highly motivated and occasionally
innovative. Surely any proposal we consider has to take into account
that the adversary won't just passively stand by while it's implemented
and blithely accept its consequences. Much more likely -- and we've
seen this already -- is that the adversary will conduct careful analysis
designed to uncover ways to repurpose and exploit any steps we take.
In this particular case, layering a micropayment system on top of
a known-insecure foundation seems to me to be doing much of the
adversary's work pro bono.
---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg