From JMS@Opus1.COM Tue Aug 13 10:11:22 1996 Received: from Piano.Opus1.COM (Piano.Opus1.COM [192.245.12.69]) by suburbia.net (8.7.4/Proff-950810) with ESMTP id KAA09023 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:11:18 +1000 Received: from Opus1.COM by Opus1.COM (PMDF V5.0-5 #9830) id <01I86Y5MRQK094DNPE@Opus1.COM>; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:22:38 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:19:27 -0700 (MST) From: "Joel M Snyder, Now Overwhelmed Again" Subject: Re: BoS: Re: SecurID In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:45:56 -0600 (MDT)" <199608122045.OAA11820@ncar.ucar.EDU> To: woods@ucar.edu Cc: best-of-security@suburbia.net, sdadmin@jabberwocky.bbnplanet.com Message-id: <01I86YMQCH3G94DNPE@Opus1.COM> Organization: Opus One - +1 520 324 0494 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Fruit-of-the-day: plantain Comments: Telecommunications and Information Technology Services > > SDTI's success is really built on the fact that users -- the > > people who actually carry the tokens -- usually say they like the SecurID > > better than the alternatives. > Here I have to concede the point. Our Consultants also believe that > the SecurID token will be easier to support in the hands of the users. You should be aware that CryptoCard, which makes a DP-compatible token, offers a "reduced input" mode which makes the amount of input equivalent to the SecurID token. We use CryptoCards in this mode with Cisco's Secure/IP server and find that the additional convenience is worth the theoretically larger additional hole. I agree with everything you wrote, and have found that the CryptoCard is a good alternative in some environments to SecurID for lower cost & roughly equivalent hassle on the part of the user. jms Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms@Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One