Subject: Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 00:29:52 -0000

>The largely unseen problem here is that the proponents of such unambiguous
>certificates  do not realize that privacy is at odds with security in CA systems.
>And, a bit more of security does not justify a bit less of privacy -- those that
>are willing to risk it will IMO lose both.  For further comments, also about
>reliance on biometrics to safeguard values (documents, money, etc.), please
>see http://www.mcg.org.br/faust.htm

Ed, if you do not have a single trusted party that you can allow to know your SSN,
some biometrics etc. you don't have a security problem, you have *personal* problem.

Security is also for a user to know that his/her lost keys are not only protected by PIN-codes
but optionally by biometrics.

Maybe you still believe that PUBLIC Key Certificates by default are public? 

                             #   #   #  #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   # 
But this discussion is a pure waste of time as biometrics in certificates have already
been "standardized" by another group.  I cannot tell which one right now as I received
this information privately.   And Steve, they of course choosed in-line bio-data!
                             #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #   #   #  #  

BTW, *their* draft looks real good and supports 20 different biometrics.

Anders

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 09:38:13 +0000

A secret "standard", eh? That'll be really useful.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi