A number of people have written words to the effect of: First Virtual, you lost a lot of ground with me. (sounds like others feel the same way, too). I disagree. I think there is a big difference between "knowing theoretically that X, Y and Z are possible" and "look, I have a program that does X, Y and Z in a certain order, and very fast, and surprisingly successfully, and this has major implications for the banking community". I compare nsb's "meaning" as I understand it to that of the paper out of Berkeley a few months ago, which basically said "We've known for a long time how IP snooping and replacement attacks could theoretically succeed; here's a program that inserts trojan horses while binaries flow across the wire based on it." That was applauded as a very meaningful result, even though the media instantly picked up on it and blew it up. I think most of the problem here is that we heard about it in media words first, and in a reasoned argument second. That's life. This is my first (and last) contribution to the discussion. Sorry to add to the verbiage. I hope FV and Nathaniel (as well as everyone else) keeps working on things like this. Greg. Greg Rose INTERNET: greg_rose@sydney.sterling.com Sterling Software VOICE: +61-2-9975 4777 FAX: +61-2-9975 2921 28 Rodborough Rd. http://www.sydney.sterling.com:8080/~ggr/ French's Forest 35 0A 79 7D 5E 21 8D 47 E3 53 75 66 AC FB D9 45 NSW 2086 Australia. co-mod sci.crypt.research, USENIX Director.