From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
To: Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Message Hash: 64b74c6a40f37f4ae3f422d6348dca5c554abe70d2b243716e7ec0bafdefadb8
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9510171136.E61417-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
Reply To: <199510171354.JAA13063@colon.cis.ohio-state.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-17 15:32:41 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:32:41 PDT
From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:32:41 PDT
To: Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Duress codes
In-Reply-To: <199510171354.JAA13063@colon.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9510171136.E61417-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Nathan Loofbourrow wrote:
> Duress PINs liberally sprinkled through the keyspace also drop the
> efficacy of brute-force PIN search for the thief.
Was there an actual protocol for doing this? (probabilistic maybe?)
Don't remember Schneier doing anything beyond just mentionning it. (ok I
can't find the page number either, so I can't really complain).
Return to October 1995
Return to “s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca”