<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Mike,</div><div><br></div>On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Michael StJohns <<a href="mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com">msj@nthpermutation.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/1/2014 7:26 PM, David Conrad
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:8CD78E83-0553-465D-A3EA-3F72FF76CBDC@icann.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Gaining unauthorized access to that HSM would be “bad”,</pre></blockquote>
This is one of those misperceptions that's important to correct
quickly.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Fair enough. Poor wording. Apologies.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Gaining access to an HSM, <u><b>along with its ignition keys</b></u>
would be bad. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes. I’d assumed this was understood.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">so we’re probably not talking about storing the HSM under somebody’s bed.</pre>
</blockquote>
Actually, why not? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it increases the risk of being able to gain full access since you only need to get the other half (the “unlocking credentials”).</div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>