Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Re: peer reviewRe: peer reviewPosted Apr 10, 2008 5:58 UTC (Thu) by AaronSw (guest, #51504)In reply to: Re: peer review by krstic Parent article: Freezing More Than Bits: Chilling Effects of the OLPC XO Security Model
You're kind of dodging the main point, Ivan. The argument of the paper is not that the Bitfrost proposal is a bad one, just that there's a blind spot in its threat model. To be fair, I had the same blind spot when I read the proposal and I wouldn't be surprised if those other security luminaries did as well. So the question is: Do you agree that kids should be protected from officials trying to interfere with their computer use? Do you think the current Bitfrost spec does enough on this front?
(Log in to post comments)
Re: peer review Posted Apr 10, 2008 12:00 UTC (Thu) by krstic (guest, #41011) [Link]
You're not paying attention to which comment I'm replying. I was addressing one particular
aspect of jhoger's message ("no peer review") because it's factually inaccurate and thus
easily debunked. As for the Patterson paper, I'll be posting my thoughts over the next few
days, but generally find it uninteresting and academically sloppy flamebait.
|
|||||||||||