from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DEB16F1E
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 19:11:16 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:11:16 +0100 (IST)
from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing2.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.26]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g84HwJZ13376 for <jm@jmason.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:58:20 +0100
from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
    D587D8F324; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 10:58:23 -0600 (MDT)
(qmail 11689 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 18:49:02 -0000
"Webappsec Securityfocus.Com" <webappsec@securityfocus.com>,
	"SECPROG Securityfocus" <SECPROG@securityfocus.com>
use of base image / delta image for automated recovery from attacks
From bmord@icon-nicholson.com  Wed Sep  4 19:11:17 2002

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569A116F1E
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu,  5 Sep 2002 11:26:25 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:26:25 +0100 (IST)
from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing2.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.26]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g84K45Z17149 for <jm@jmason.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:04:05 +0100
from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
    06BF48F2F4; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 13:08:52 -0600 (MDT)
(qmail 12726 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 17:22:30 -0000
<200209032103.44905.ygingras@ygingras.net>; from
    ygingras@ygingras.net on Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:03:40PM -0400
'Author of this message is not responsible for any harm done
    to reader's computer.'
From strange@nsk.yi.org  Thu Sep  5 11:26:30 2002

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:03:40PM -0400, Yannick Gingras wrote:
> This make me wonder about the relative protection of smart cards.  They have
> an internal procession unit around 4MHz.  Can we consider them as trusted
> hardware ?  The ability to ship smart cards periodicaly uppon cashing of a
> monthly subscription fee would not raise too much the cost of "renting" the
> system.  Smart card do their own self encryption.  Can they be used to
> decrypt data needed by the system ?  The input of the system could me mangled
> and the would keep a reference of how long it was in service.
>
> This sounds really feasible but I may be totaly wrong.  I may also be wrong
> about the safety of a smart card.
>
> What do you think ?
That's similar to using hard-locks (either the old parallel, or the new
usb).
The problem is that that piece of hardware is trustworthy, but the rest of
the PC isn't, so a cracker just needs to simulate the lock/smart card, or
peek at the executable after the lock has been deactivated.
Regards,
Luciano Rocha
--
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.