Subject: Re: A challenge

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:31:24 -0700

one of the factors driving 7816 standardization/commoditization in the '80s
was that 7816 was a portable computing device ... but was dependent upon
somewhat ubiquitous deployment of (stationary) input/output stations.

the spread of integrated portable input/output technology (cellphones &
pds) in the early '90s started to chip away at the original 7816 target
market (i.e. portable computing devices w/o requirement for ubiquitous
input/output stations.

further eroding this target market is the spread of numerous
contractless/wireless technologies. a big part of the 7816 standardization
was the requirement for physical interoperability between the portable 7816
devices and the input/output stations. contactless technologies enable
arbitrary form-factors .... further chiping away at the 7816 market
segment. one of the targets for iso 14443 is a current primary 7816 market
segment, point-of-sale .... where the contact infrastructure is showing
failures .... especially in high-traffic areas. contactless/wireless breaks
the requirement for form-factor specific implementation (required by
contact interoperability) and starts to allow interoperability with devices
regardless of their form factor.

for the aads chip strawman
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/index.html#aadstraw

in '98 timeframe, i had somewhat facetiously claimed that i would take a
$500 milspec part and cost-reduce it by two-orders of magnitude while
improving the integrity.

at an assurance panel in the TCPA track at the intel developer's
conference, i claimed that the chip met all the function/requirements of
the TPM (and was finalized much earlier) and was equivalent to the best of
integrity from gov. agencies. One of the TCPA people in the audience
commented that wasn't fair since I didn't have a committee of 200 people
helping me. One of the people on the panel from a gov. TLA replied that it
was possibly true except in the area of radiation hardening. other past
tcpa related posts:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#0 maximize best case, worst case,
or average case? (TCPA)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#14 Challenge to TCPA/Palladium
detractors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#15 Challenge to TCPA/Palladium
detractors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#16 Feasability of Palladium / TCPA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#17 Overcoming the potential
downside of TCPA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#18 Overcoming the potential
downside of TCPA
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#19 TCPA not virtualizable during
ownership change (Re: Overcoming the potential downside of TCPA)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#24 Interests of online banks and
their users [was Re: Cryptogram:  Palladium Only for DRM]
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#30 Employee Certificates - Security
Issues
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm12.htm#63 Intertrust, Can Victor Shear
Bring Down Microsoft?

--
Internet trivia, 20th anv: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm