On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 14:27 -0800, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Mark E. Skeels wrote:
> 
> >> I wonder why the video link wasn't encrypted, though?
> 
>  From the article: "The vulnerability could date back to the 1990s,  
> said Peter Singer, a military technology analyst for the Brookings  
> Institution."
> 
> Some of you might recall the 1990s; CPUs back then didn't have as many  
> GIPS as they do now, and real-time encrypt/decrypt of video-rate data  
> might not have been such a no-brainer (assume that a "vulnerability"  
> dating back to 90s means a design dating back to early 90s.  Pre- 
> pentium!)

Sorry, I don't agree. Cable companies were "encrypting" their pay
channel video signals to customers in those days, even that minimal
amount of "encryption" (trivial to break today, a little harder in those
days) would have been better then the nothing they were relying on. 

TTYL




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist