> If you want actual security, you have to go for a challenge-response scheme Sure you just have to accept that you're now vulnerable to Denial of Service atta

> If you want actual security, you have to go for a challenge-response scheme Sure you just have to accept that you're now vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks, or just DoS due to unrelated service infrastructure outages caused by things like backhoes. > much less orient them consistently for the bond process to work?! It's not all that consistent. They have a 3% failure rate. And you have to accept a unique map of "broken chips" with every single order you receive.