example: secure computing kernel needed
William Arbaugh
waa at cs.umd.edu
Mon Dec 22 19:47:51 EST 2003
>
I agree with everything you say, David, until here.
> As for remote attestion, it's true that it does not directly let a
> remote
> party control your computer. I never claimed that. Rather, it enables
> remote parties to exert control over your computer in a way that is
> not possible without remote attestation. The mechanism is different,
> but the end result is similar.
>
>
If that is the case, then strong authentication provides the same
degree of control over your computer. With remote attestation, the
distant end determines if they wish to communicate with you based on
the fingerprint of your configuration. With strong authentication, the
distant end determines if they wish to communicate with you based on
your identity.
I just don't see remote attestation as providing control over your
computer provided the user/owner has control over when and if remote
attestation is used. Further, I can think of several instances where
remote attestation is a good thing. For example, a privacy P2P file
sharing network. You wouldn't want to share your files with an RIAA
modified version of the program that's designed to break the anonymity
of the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com
More information about the cryptography
mailing list