Robert B. <PICLIST@mitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> I still think it's a good idea to have a double-check system like
> the one I've described.  A simple increment-on-use syncronized
> counter would be acceptable, but far easier to bypass or work
> around than a more complicated unpublished algorithm.  In the end
> it might not make the system any more secure against an initial
> attack, but it would at least alert you if someone else had been /
> is currently there, and that its time to change the lock to
> resecure the system.

    Wouldn't it be easier to just buy a big dog, Robert?

    -Andrew

=== Andrew Warren -- aiw@cypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body