Talk:Hardware security module

I think perhaps the Hardware Acceleration section is dated at this point. In some cases a modern host processor is now faster than the embedded system chip in the HSM. For instance, nCipher no longer makes claims of acceleration on much of its hardware line (a new-ish laptop can keep up with their '4000' systems in digest calculation, for instance)

Jdmarshall (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are "Hardware Security Module" and "secure cryptoprocessor" two names for the same thing, and so should be merged? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting exact same thing in secure cryptoprocessor discussion. KnowS (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by 201.82.33.70

Comparison table is outright vandalism/advertising. Other changes are of questionable quality. Who agrees with me that we need to reorganize table and perhaps revisit other edits? "HSM Main Uses" is a good start, can use some clarification (i.e. link & explain CA (Certificate Authority)).

   "The goals of an HSM are the: (a) secure generation, (b) secure storage, (c) and use of cryptographic and sensitive data material. HSMs provide both logical and physical protection of these materials from non-authorized use and potential adversaries."

Needs clarification. "Use of cryptographic and sensitive data" is too generic.

  Devices with no physical security usually are called Host Security Modules in opposition to Hardware Security Modules.

This is outright wrong. Host Security Module refers to Financial Transactions HSM, where HOST one of the key components in transaction processing.KnowS (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table is too large, right now a lot of columns are of questionable value. I suggest getting rid of following...

Vendor Country
ICP-Brasil ITI MCT-7 Sec. Level
Authentication
Connectivity
Requires Client License
Price range ($ = 10K)

... at the very least. Whole table is of questionable value. KnowS (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance, tables, and other information

I think performance figures are quite outdated... better update...

Regarding the table, however I feel that there should be a comparison table somewhere in Wikipedia as it is quite difficult to find good information about these devices. Perhaps is table should be placed on a new wiki page.

In matter of fact, I think that there should be 3 tables, maybe based on given device main use... there is no point comparing SSL acceleration devices to PKI devices. Splitting the table would make the resulting tables with less columns and much more readable.

Robertogallo (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]