3 ms·
That is not a meaning I would have derived from my reply. You’re welcome to construct a scenario explaining what you mean, but the question alone offers no guid
by floatingatoll 8y ago
That is not a meaning I would have derived from my reply. You’re welcome to construct a scenario explaining what you mean, but the question alone offers no guidance on what you’re thinking to permit me to construct a reply.
- geofft 8y agoYou've argued that legal protections, including China's stronger IP stance, means that USB-IF can be confident about cracking down on counterfeiting, and that it doesn't matter that the connector is east to reverse-engineer. If so, how is a cryptographic authentication scheme as described in the article (including authentication of devices, not just connectors and cables) relevant, let alone useful? How does it help anti-counterfeiting and why are the legal mechanisms by themselves insufficient?
- floatingatoll 8y agoI'm not planning to follow up further on this thread, sorry. If you are able to define an anti-counterfeiting mechanism that does not depend on cryptographic signatures, you could probably corner a billion dollar market. I encourage doing so, but have no further assistance to offer you.