[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device
- From: "James Hoye" <james.hoye@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:10:35 +0100
- Delivered-to: rich@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- References: <9fgj21+me0o@xxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Do we need an application level checksum to verify the integrity
> of each command? This would prevent the use of a simple telnet
> session to interact with a device (unless it was optional/could be
> turned off). Should mis-formatted commands simply be ignored or
What would be neat is some sort of digital signature to guarantee the
authenicity of commands/packets. Perhaps this should be catered for in the
protocol definition, rather than in the device data itself.
Would provide additional security when, perhaps, the devices are controlled
remotely via the Internet or similar. Also, remote authentication could be
provided via smartcard or similar technology (we might as well branch out
into loads of different [relevant] areas of technology - can't do any harm
on individuals' CVs).
James (wishing he actually had some time to contribute, but can offer peer
review/sanity check/ideas meanwhile...!)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|