Dirk Wetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Explaining: An idea of a car to car communication system with break /
> >> accident warning having anything to do with WLAN appears just stupid to me.
> >
> > OK, maybe you do not know that there is a special WLAN standard for car to
> > car
> > communication. It takes care of the short time for setting up a connection.
>
> I wasn't on my radar that was WLAN and it can operate breaks and it's a
> standard by now.
I was talking about break warning - not operating.
> > Security indeed is a problem here as we do not like teasers to sit alongside
> > of a road telling cars that there is a need for an emergency breaking.
>
> Yes! I need to read about it. But using a technology (i.e. wireless) where
> you never know 1) the technology will be still safe in 10 years time 2)
> whether it's correctly implemented by the manufacturer 3) whether it's
> appropriately set up (see passkeys of bluetooth features of some cars) is
> not sound. It's usage for this purpose doesn't make it any better if it is
> a standard, see e.g. WEP.
WEP is not strong cryptography. For car security you need strong cryptography.
This is research, not massproduction...
But we are too off topic now.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
