1994-12-09 - Re: Secure DAC?
Header Data
From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2c179ae18ae0210a8602109ee84f25cf6c7e3f29931e0eae25b36f50c8ae72ba
Message ID: <199412091618.IAA25744@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <94Dec9.095259edt.3818@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-09 15:20:04 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 07:20:04 PST
Raw message
From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 07:20:04 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Secure DAC?
In-Reply-To: <94Dec9.095259edt.3818@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
Message-ID: <199412091618.IAA25744@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
[re: a constant current consumption chip]
I fail to see how this would increase cryptographic potential. However,
it would seem to mask the device's EMR.
One of the largest sources of radiated signal goes out the power
supply. Some of the really high security chips, evidently, double
every gate for constant current draw.
Eric
Thread
Return to December 1994
- Return to “Ben <samman@CS.YALE.EDU>”
- Return to “eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)”
Return to “SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>”
- 1994-12-09 (Fri, 9 Dec 94 06:53:36 PST) - Secure DAC? - SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
- 1994-12-09 (Fri, 9 Dec 94 07:20:04 PST) - Re: Secure DAC? - eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
- 1994-12-09 (Fri, 9 Dec 94 13:02:07 PST) - Re: Secure DAC? - Ben <samman@CS.YALE.EDU>