[Barry]
> Here's an interesting thing to test: discriminate words differently if
> they are on a line that starts with `>' or, to catch styles like
> above, that the first occurance on a line of < or > is > (to eliminate
> html).
Give me a mod to timtoken.py that does this, and I'll be happy to test it.
> Then again, it may not be worth trying to un-false-positive that
> Nigerian scam quote.
If there's any sanity in the world, even the original poster would be glad
to have his kneejerk response blocked <wink>.  OTOH, you know there are a
great many msgs on c.l.py (all over Usenet) that do nothing except quote a
previous post and add a one-line comment.  Remove the quoted sections from
those, and there may be no content left to judge except for the headers.  So
I can see this nudging the stats in either direction.  The only way to find
out for sure is for you to write some code <wink>.

No, hits=-991.6 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50
	version=2.50-cvs

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7022C16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:29:18 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:29:18 +0100 (IST)
from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing3.securityfocus.com
    [205.206.231.27]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8K1RlC15202 for <jm@jmason.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 02:27:47 +0100
from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
    [205.206.231.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
    2EF35A30D1; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:19:19 -0600 (MDT)
(qmail 1068 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 00:36:36 -0000
"Michael McKay" <mmckay@iscubed.com>,
	"'Bryan Feir'" <bryan@sgl.crestech.ca>, <secprog@securityfocus.com>,
	<strange@nsk.yi.org>
from quoted-printable to 8bit by dogma.slashnull.org
    id g8K1RlC15202
From secprog-return-509-jm=jmason.org@securityfocus.com  Fri Sep 20 11:29:20 2002

On Thursday 19 September 2002 16:44, Michael McKay wrote:
> 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 ?
SmartCards do not have fixed clock rates (more often than not) as the ISO spec
dictates that they are externally powered and clocked, but SmartCards used
for security purposes (usually JavaCards) have built-in crypto co-processors
that make clock rate irrelevant. 4mhz SmartCards can often preform triple-DES
faster than general purpose processors clocked at ten times the speed.
That said, clock rate has nothing with how trustworthy a card is. As Michael
pointed out, there's something of an arms-race between manufacturers and
attackers which has nothing to do with clock rate, and time and time again
what we've seen is that it's not a question of "is it secure", it's a
question of "who is it secure from and for how long?" Security is rarely a
question of absolutes (despite the often boolean nature of a break), rather
it's a question of assessing, quantifying, and managing risk. SmartCards are
designed to address threats in which the cost of protection cannot exceed the
$1-20 range (depending on the application).
As whether or not they are "trusted hardware", the question again revolves
around attacker and timeframe. One might expect a bored undergrad EE student
to have more trouble revealing the contents of a pilfered smartcard than,
say, a governtment intelligence service. If your goal is to keep undergrad
EEs from perpetrating mass fraud in the caffeteria, then a smartcard is
likely "trustworthy" enough for your application. If your aim is to protect
ICBM launch codes, then it's probably the wrong tool. In either application,
a risk/cost ratio must justify the use of the protection measure in question.
--
Alex Russell
alex@SecurePipe.com
alex@netWindows.org