Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
CM, Well said! You modestly neglected your own contributions but I would add you to that illustrious list as well!
Svenm
Doma, You're amazing!
Svenm
From ST Micro's PR 1/26/05: ST announced that it will incorporate the ARM1176JZF-S(TM)
PrimeXsys(R) Platform with TrustZone(TM) technology into its
Nomadik(TM) family of multimedia application processors. The
development, based on ST's advanced low-power 65-nm technology, will
give the Company's customers a head start in rolling out third-
generation mobile multimedia terminals.
Svenm
OT. Zen, Wavxmaster, Try Firefox from Mozilla. Made a big difference for me and way better than Internet Explorer.
Svenm
Weby, Nice post and good points. Re: DAA unless you have new info on that tech the last time I looked it is improbable that DAA required any Wave IP per se. However, since DAA is still based on the TPM/TCG paradigm a TAN (hopefully Wave's) will still be a requirement for key management. Even IF (and the last time I looked DAA was still a theory from an IBM research group) DAA attained widespread adoption it appeared to be a level of security below that that one would expect with the delivery of valuable digital content. I'm sure AWK could help me with this if he's around today.
Svenm
Bertha,
Thanks. eom.
Svenm
Doma, Me too! Thanks.(eom)
Svenm
Doma, Great finds, thanks! But you write "Sonoma Notebooks...all with TPM's?" Do you have any evidence of that other than the notebooks you mentioned? Looking up the Intel spec's on 915 chipsets I couldn't find any reference to TPM's on mobiles at all. TIA for any other info you have supporting your comment.
Svenm
Go-Kite,
My understanding is that Wave intends to function as Trusted Third Party providing attestation services. Presumably they would need hardware servers in order to provide attestation. Do you agree? Did you ask them that question in your previous correspondence re: physical servers owned by Wave?
Svenm
Weby, Re: Dell sales. My understanding, coming from a very informed source, would indicate that the arrangement is that Wave will be working with Envoy to sell ETS to purchasers of TPM equipped laptops. I.e., ETS software will not be automatically bundled. It will be the only TPM software offered, however. Therefore, any estimates for Dell revenue should take that sales model into account. Since Dell and Envoy are both making $'s on each ETS unit sold they will hopefully make every effort to bundle ETS with a TPM-equipped machine. However, every TPM PC sold by Dell will not result in revenue to Wave, IMO.
Svenm
Awk, I guess I don't understand what importance that date may have. By the way, you have mail at your compuserve address.
Svenm
bowWave, Re: "kernel". I read the referenced article and it appears to me that the authors clearly differentiate between a security kernel and an application. And they clearly state that they intend to construct their own security kernel. The goal seems to be to provide a small model for what could be a much larger system. I don't claim to understand exactly what portion of Wave IP would be integral to the authors' project, however, and I welcome anybody else with a good technical understanding to offer their own interpretation.
Svenm
Barge, It sounds to me as if the cadets intend to develop their own kernel: We will develop a high assurance, embedded micro-kernel, and trusted application, as a reference
implementation exemplar for trusted computing. The primary security function of the Embedded
MicroKernel will be to enforce process and data-domain separation, while providing primitive
operating system services sufficient to support simple applications.
They have licensed ETS and TecSec software in order to accomplish interoperability with the common access card. But, I assume they want their own kernel for their proprietary domain?
Svenm
Awk, You've got mail.
Svenm
Whitewash, Re;Revenue model. It seems to me that Wave is keying in on the verifying and servicing aspect of applete life cycles. SKS has made the point in previous cc's that Wave "is not going to tax trusted computing." Rather, he expects Wave revenues to be paid on the basis of service provided. I take this to mean that the recent talk on this board of payments in the form of a "cut", however small, on transactions, going back to the original Peter patent, is probably not the current plan. I suspect that Wave may have advanced that model in the industry and was met with a rebuff. Realizing that it wouldn't fly, the area of authentication was staked out. Some may consider a utility business unexciting, but personally I would be very happy to see Wave grow to become the Consolidated Edison of the Trusted Web.
JMVHO,
Svenm
2B, Re: Apple. A young, German PhD-candidate friend of my family is visiting for the holidays. On arrival she promptly went out and bought a new IBook laptop with her precious $'s and spent the next day demonstrating all its virtues to our PC-centric household. Having seen how well thought-out that machine is, and then heard from my daughter that her live-in boyfriend software genius is planning a similar purchase I've begun to think that Apple is poised to leverage IPod to retake some of the computer market as well.
How difficult would it be for Wave to write their software to accomodate the Apple O/S? And as Weby asked, would Apple be interested in their security solution? I would think that inquiring Wavoids would like to know! As you write, competition is a good thing and if the ETS were to be adopted by Apple/(Pixar) it would force the PC OEM's to enter the ball game or give up a lot of ground, IMHO.
Svenm
OT: DigS, Re: "Stepping Away." Don't go too far! Your comments, I'm sure, are appreciated by many including myself, even though I often may not agree. There's nothing more irritating than a counterargument that contains an irrefutable grain of truth (lol)! Besides your sometimes refreshing, if painful insights, your droll humor would definitely be missed!
Svenm
Whitewash, Good point! You mean you don't think that Fiorina, Barrat and Ottelini got together in a locked suite and swore on a stack of bibles that they would never allow IBM to control trusted computing?(lol)
Svenm
Howard, The question is how that stock would be voted at the prices suggested. Reread by post and concentrate on the part about insider (mgt) sales last 6 months. I would hope that mgt would take the same path as Gates/Ballmer/Allen but there is no guarantee. But if you look at the history of MSFT I don't think you'll find sales by that team that you find with WAVX. That concerns me.
Svenm
Barge, bolds were only supposed to be the word "sales." I didn't bother to review and edit this post before it got sent.
Svenm
Barge, Re: Buyout. My understanding of public companies is that a buyout is predicated on the ability of an economic entity to tender an offer accepted by the existing shareholders. I've never heard of read anything to indicate that that offer needs to be reviewed by a list of companies, institutions, etc. to decide whether or not it is politically correct. An exception, of course, would be the question of Sherman Anti-Trust Act considerations but that is hardly the case here. On the other hand, one can consider, as Rachelelise pointed out, the possibility that major insiders, including officers, may consider a shareprice attractive enough to consider a sale. Even if they themselves don't have enough shares to produce a majority, their influence would be considerable to existing shareholders.
I would like to remind you that in the last six months the net transactions by company insiders of WAVX were net sales[b/] of 524,000 shares! Need I remind you what those prices were? Suppose the price was $10-15? Do you think it is absolutely beyond the pale that these same individuals may not consider a sale, or try to influence some others to sell? Do you think Vanguard, the currently largest shareholder with about 1M shares, cares what the TCG thinks about Wave being sold? I don't. I would also like to point out to you that the four major individual insiders in WAVX only own about 1M shares between the four of them. They have previously voted with their feet at prices far below what I'm talking about.
I would like you to please tell me how you would expect the TCG to prevent a sale, assuming there was a buyer?
Thank you,
Svenm
Rachelelise, Re: buyout. Do you know what the status is in regards to the A and B (?) share status in which one class of share had greater voting rights, providing the founders with control of the company? Is it possible now that a large entity could come in and brush the founders aside (assuming the insiders did not want to relinquish control)? Or could the company go private (hopefully with the present investors, I assume) with the help of a private equity house in order to assure control of the company? This is definitely out of my realm of understanding but I share your concern of a buyout of the company at this early stage (I'm including the $10-15 level). Do you have any insight here?
TIA,
Svenm
Whitewash, Speaking of Greg, where is he today?(roflmao)
Svenm
Go-Kite, Thanks for the detailed response. Aside from the issue of the percentages do those prices make sense to you. I haven't seen where that $10,000 figure comes from. Do you know its origin or do you know if that is a ballpark # for the industry?
Svenm
Awk, "a developers conference is to educate ISV's and product customers and not to get them into a discussion about the myriad of possibilities how a certain feature could be enabled."
Thanks for that piece of info! I thought that since the presentation was at a developers conference Lark's pitch was just one of many presenting alternatives! Bring on the mobiles!
Svenm
Go-Kite/Doma, What # does that 18% apply to? What does that potentially mean in actual $'s? Assuming it is 18% that is?
Svenm
Awk, AMEN!(eom)
Svenm
Go-Kite, The RFID initiative, as well as the principles of NTRU, are both centered at MIT. It wouldn't be a surprise to see connection there.
Svenm
2B, For the puzzle-challenged among us, why not just bold the relevant parts and let us in on the info?
Svenm
Rachelise, One can also hope that timing is part of his. Intel's Sumrall carried the baton on the 1st lap at the same time that Intel's TC efforts were being highlighted. Perhaps the next lap will be run by Wave with Berger doing the commentary!
Svenm
2B Stealthy, Do you have an email address I can reach you at that doesn't cost $25 to use?
Svenm
Awk, Thanks for the reply and those diagrams really are very useful. If the EMBASSY Trusted Computing brand is the original E2 system then I would agree it is there in plain black and white. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I haven't seen (or haven't understood) that to be a fact. Nevertheless, the process of elimination, while not a positive ID, would certainly implicate the EMBASSY O/S (or a variation thereof).
Svenm
Governor, If you go to the TCG website and look up their organizational diagrams you'll find that the only marketing committee is a workgroup. There is no other. Nancy Sumrall from Intel previously had that position. Apparently Berger has replaced her. I missed that previously in the post about Sana as well and I would say that's terrific! The implications are pretty obvious.
Svenm
Awk, I've read that PR several times, but I don't equate that with the Embassy O/S being used in TrustZone. Couldn't it just as easily mean that elements of Wave's CSP, ETS, etc. could be used with the TrustZone tech? None of this would rule out the importance of the TAN providing interoperability between mobiles, STB's, etc. and PC's, but that is a little different than the Embassy O/S being the adopted O/S for TrustZone, isn't it?
Svenm
Awk, Question: Can you point to anything (other than a process of deduction) that makes you so certain that TrustZone's Secure Execution Mode will use the Embassy O/S? The PR spoke of the use of the Embassy Trust Suite technology, but I didn't see anything that directly implicated such a front and center use of the Embassy O/S. My process of deduction agrees with your conclusion, but I haven't seen anything positively identifying the Embassy O/S role there.
Also, thanks and kudos to both you and Go-Kite for the very illuminating discussion today on the mobile space!
TIA,
Svenm
Tony, Thanks, that is the most complete, easy-to-understand presentation of the present state of the technology that I've seen.
Svenm
Snacks, Your welcome! Here's another one from IBM Research:
Computer Science
Innovation Matters
Security
Research for Advancing Trusted Computing
IBM has pioneered work in applying hardware support to enable trust in system execution. The IBM 4758 started as a research project to build a secure, tamper-resistant cryptographic coprocessor. Software whose integrity is necessary for the correct execution of the business can be run on the 4758 Cryptographic Coprocessor with confidence, even against insider attacks. A variety of IBM clients use the IBM 4758 and its recently available successor -- the IBM 4764.
A key aspect in the design of the 4758/4764 is the design of a mechanism that enables the cryptographic coprocessor to prove its integrity to remote systems, called attestation. Attestation protocols enable a remote party to verify that the software loaded on a system and the order in which it is loaded, correspond to expectations.
Attestation has become a key mechanism in building secure systems. The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is a consortium of several companies, including IBM as a promoter member, that aims to standardize a hardware module and a software stack that enable attestation and other security services necessary for verifying system integrity. The idea is that the hardware, called a trusted platform module (TPM), holds identifying secrets of a system and TPM software stack (TSS) enables measurement of the software loaded. Because the TPM has cryptographic signature ability, it can generate messages that remote systems can use to verify the software running on the system with the TPM.
The TCG standard sets a possible basis for building secure systems, but it is still necessary to figure out how to use the TPM in an open way. IBM Research has been a leader in answering this question. First, IBM researchers were the first to provide an open source TPM driver for Linux. Also, IBM researcher David Safford wrote an article describing appropriate uses of the TPM to show that it can be an open platform basis. Further, the IBM Tokyo Research Lab (TRL) has developed software to measure the integrity of boot process using a TPM.
More research is still required to determine how to use the TPM functionality effectively. Although the TPM is designed to measure the integrity of a sequential load of software, as in the boot process, IBM Research has identified broader uses. For instance, an Integrity Measurement Architecture (IMA) where the TPM is used to enable verification of application software running on Linux. IBM researcher Leendert van Doorn's group found that if the operating system maintains a load sequence, the TPM can be used to maintain an aggregate value that can be used to verify the software components loaded and the order in which they are loaded. A demonstration of a prototype of this approach was made at the RSA conference in February 2004 which generated much discussion and press coverage. Furthermore, in September 2004 at the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston, researchers from IBM Tokyo Research Lab applied this architecture in an TPM-extended embedded controller that supports an RFID application built using a Trusted JVM and Open Service Gateway Initiative (OSGi) Framework developed in IBM Almaden Research Center, and a lightweight WS-Security engine, to show a comprehensive security framework for pervasive devices. This demo was also presented in the OSGi World Congress in October 2004 in Barcelona, Spain.
Integrity Measurement Architecture
Integrity Measurement Architecture
IBM Research continues to look at the issues of applying TCG. The IBM T.J. Watson Research Center recently showed how IMA can be used to allow a corporation to control access to its data used by its employees working at home. Also, researchers in the IBM Zurich Research Lab are examining how to describe a model of attestation based on properties, so that remote verification can be simpler. Finally, IBM researchers in New York are looking at using mandatory access control policies now available in Linux to generate such properties. The Grand Challenge is to devise an approach to integrity verification that meets practical concerns and can be performed in a natural manner in the course of computer processing.
The TCG standards aim to provide a trusted component in our systems that could enable computers to work together with some confidence in each other's integrity, but many problems must be solved to make such tools practical. IBM Research has been in the forefront of trusted computing and through the skills in its labs will continue to explore the hardware, systems, application, and theoretical approaches to improve system security.
Selected Publications
Dyer, J.G., Lindemann, M., Perez, R., Sailer, R., Smith, S.W., van Doorn, L., Weingart, S., The IBM Secure Coprocessor: Overview and Retrospective, IEEE Computer, October 2001.
David Safford, Jeff Kravitz and Leendert van Doorn. Take Control of TCPA, Linux Journal No. 112, August 2003.
Hendricks, J, and Van Doorn, L., Secure Bootstrap is Not Enough: Shoring up the Trusted Computing Base, Proc. of the Eleventh SIGOPS European Workshop, ACM SIGOPS, Leuven, Belgium, September 2004.
Reiner Sailer, Xiaolan Zhang, Trent Jaeger, Leendert van Doorn. Design and Implementation of a TCG-based Integrity Measurement Architecture. 13th Usenix Security Symposium, San Diego, California, August 2004.
Reiner Sailer, Trent Jaeger, Xiaolan Zhang, Leendert van Doorn. Attestation-based Policy Enforcement for Remote Access. 11th Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Washington, D.C., October 2004.
Seshadri, A., Perrig, A., van Doorn, L., Khosla, P., SWATT: SoftWare-based ATTestation for Embedded Devices, Proc. of the IEEE Security & Privacy Conference, IEEE, Oakland, CA, May 2004.
Copyright © (2004) by Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part of all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Copyright © (2001, 2004) by IEEE. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
News and Information
4758 product
4758 open source system
Embedded Systems Conference Boston
ESC Press release
Innovators Corner
Leendert van Doorn
Leendert van Doorn
Researcher
What is the most exciting potential future use for the work you're doing?
I think the big value of the trusted computing group (TCG) and our Linux integrity measurement architecture is that it provides the means to verify the software stack that is running on a remote system. In today's world, the way we trust a remote system is by verifying the certificate it presents as part of an SSL handshake. From a security point of view this is rather weak mechanism, because we assume that by presenting a valid certificate the server is also running with a correct and untampered-with software stack. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. Buffer overflows or even mundane configuration errors undermine this assumption. Just imagine providing your credit card to a Web service that can present you with a valid certificate, but in reality siphons the data to a remote site for transactions other than the intended use.
Far-fetched? Unlikely scenario? No, not really. As became overwhelmingly clear during a recent large-scale attack on Web sites, the fact that you know the certificate of your Web site and that you use an SSL-secured channel to communicate with the site, none of these mechanisms actually guarantee that you as the consumer are now secure. What happened during the week of 6/24? A large number of Web sites got infected with a Trojan horse, which, in turn, would infect the unsuspecting consumers that would connect to the site.
Trust is a difficult concept to formalize and its definition is very much in the eye of the beholder, in our case the consumer of a service. However, this trust is derived from claims made by the service provider and we can loosely define a continuum of the accuracy of these claims in light of potential threats. To illustrate this, consider the Trojan attack that was mentioned above. Since the remote attackers managed to get a Trojan to impersonate a service, it is highly unlikely that the service itself could provide a truthful statement about the kind of service it is providing.
The trust of a consumer, whether this is a person or another computer system, is a fundamental building block for secure distributed computing. The ability to attest that a provider is delivering the correct and properly configured service is the basis for that trust decision. Our Linux integrity measurement architecture addresses these concerns and is a first step towards a solution.
What is the most interesting part of your research?
The most interesting aspect of this work is to get a handle on the notion of trust. Not just in a theoretical sense, but also in practice and especially when reasoning about a continuum of trust.
What inspired you to go into this field?
I am very curious and have a very broad interest. Security was one of the few things I could think of that allowed me to work on everything IBM is doing. So far this has been true. I have been involved with CPU design, hypervisors, operating systems, secure cryptographic coprocessors, wireless networking, and TCG.
What is your favorite invention of all time?
My favorite invention of all time (at least for now) is the TiVo system. It enables me to watch the shows that I am interested in, on my own schedule, at my own pace -- even helping me by finding similar shows automatically.
What I found interesting here was the RFID application. For the benefit of those who may not have noticed, WalMart has demanded that all of their products be tagged for RFID purposes by 2008. There is every reason to believe that trusted computing will be an integral part of the RFID initiative which promises to be a huge application which could, IMHO, push a huge enterprise purchase of hardware.
Svenm
Wave mention in Nov. 8 NTRU press release re: CTSS for TPM 1.2's. Excuse me in advance if already posted.
NTRU Releases New Core TCG Software Stack (CTSS) 1.2 for Trusted Computing Applications
NTRU CTSS 1.2 Enables Widespread Deployment of Trusted Computing Devices
Burlington, MA: November 8, 2004 – NTRU, the information security experts, today announced the release of The NTRU Core TCG Software Stack (CTSS) 1.2. This product, which leverages the innovations made in NTRU’s CTSS 1.1, provides the essential core interface and security services framework for any application or platform that relies on the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 1.2. The NTRU CTSS 1.2 is a first-to-market product designed in accordance with Trusted Computing Group (TCG) specifications and guidance for a standard version 1.2 TSS and is enhanced with strong, standards-compliant cryptographic libraries. The CTSS provides a set of software components that allows applications running under various operating systems to take advantage of the platform's 1.1b or 1.2 compliant TPM in a coordinated, consistent, and portable manner.
“Enabling software developers to access the functionality of the TPM is an important goal of the TCG. An independent, multi-platform TSS from NTRU provides another tool in the developer's toolkit that will help accelerate TPM adoption,” said David Grawrock, Security Architect, Intel Corporation.
“ST is pleased that NTRU has continued to demonstrate its trusted computing expertise with the release of NTRU CTSS 1.2. By combining the NTRU CTSS with STMicroelectronics' Advanced 1.2 Trusted Platform Module, ST can offer a complete trusted computing solution to PC manufacturers,” said Alain Jarre, Consumer and IT Business Unit Director, Smart Card ICs Division, STMicroelectronics.
The NTRU CTSS is designed in accordance with the TCG TSS standard and is enhanced with strong, standards compliant cryptographic libraries. The CTSS provides a set of software components that allows applications and peripherals to take advantage of a platform's TPM hardware module in a coordinated, consistent, and portable manner. The CTSS has been thoroughly tested on Windows and Linux operating systems and will ensure interoperability across platforms using different hardware and software.
“The NTRU CTSS 1.2 shows NTRU's commitment to bringing flexibility to the trusted computing market. Consumers will benefit from being able to take advantage of trusted computing applications on a wide variety of platforms.” said Kerry Maletsky, Business Unit Director for Atmel Corporation.
“Platform owners can benefit from the security and portability of a new the NTRU CTSS 1.2 and Wave Systems' EMBASSY Trust Suite (ETS) family of TCG-compliant secure cross-platform computing software solutions for client and server applications. By providing a standards-compliant and versatile TSS, NTRU is giving PC OEMs and system architects more choices in providing strong trusted computing solutions to end users,” said Brian Berger, executive vice president, marketing and sales, Wave Systems.
Highlights of The NTRU CTSS 1.2:
* Interoperable with all 1.2 TCG compliant TPMs
* Able to communicate with 1.1b TPMs and a 1.2 TPMs simultaneously
* Adds access to new 1.2 TPM functionality as defined by the Trusted Computing Group’s TSS 1.2 specification
* Fully backwards compatible with existing 1.1 TSS and 1.1b TPM products
* Compatible with existing software written to communicate with a 1.1 compliant TSS
* Designed for portability with current support for Windows® XP/2000 and Linux 2.4 platforms
“The release of this product demonstrates our ongoing commitment to enable trusted computing PCs and embedded platforms throughout the world. NTRU continues to work with TPM vendors, PC OEMs and ISVs to deliver a robust, interoperable, standards-based TSS that works in both Windows® and Linux environments and on multiple hardware platforms,” said Ed King, CEO of NTRU. “We are deeply involved in the design and development of the 1.2 TSS specification in the TCG. This industry participation allowed us to build a superior product that provides higher levels of security for new and existing TCG applications and products.”
“NTRU's CTSS 1.2 gives PC OEMs the ability to use best-in-class software with best-in-class hardware such as the Trusted I/O integrated TPM and Super I/O parts from National Semiconductor. The availability of cost-effective, standards-based hardware and software demonstrates the maturity of the industry and should rapidly accelerate the transition of every PC into a Trusted Platform,” said Todd D. Whitaker, co-general manager of National Semiconductor's Advanced PC Division.
“NTRU's offering of a robust, multi-platform TSS allows applications such as Softex's OmniPass software application to seamlessly incorporate the hardware security provided by various TPMs. By taking advantage of the NTRU CTSS 1.2, we can increase the flexibility of our innovative security and access applications for the end user,” said Gregg Philipson, Vice President - Sales for Softex Incorporated.
“We are very pleased with NTRU’s leadership in interoperability in the Trusted Computing space. NTRU's robust and versatile TSS will enable a seamless transition between existing TCG implementations and next-generation trusted computing applications,” said Nancy Sumrall, marketing work group chair, Trusted Computing Group.
Additional Features of the NTRU CTSS 1.2
* Fully compliant with TCG specifications and guidance for standard TSS design
* Strong, standards compliant cryptographic services built-in
* Supports application defined security policies
* Localizes sensitive security operations within the local process
* Thread-safe design
* Supports local and remote TPMs
* Design and implementation techniques in accordance with industry best practices for protecting against security vulnerabilities
* Ability to leverage TPM custom features
* Flexibility for future interoperability with the Microsoft Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) and Microsoft Longhorn OS
About NTRU
NTRU Cryptosystems, Inc. provides comprehensive security expertise to the embedded technology market. From system security analysis to highly optimized implementations on the most constrained platforms, NTRU provides practical security solutions that are tailored for specific application environments. NTRU's core competencies extend from development and evaluation of standards based security architectures and protocols, cryptosystem design and implementation of security solutions based on the NTRU algorithm suite and other major algorithms. NTRU provides state of the art services and solutions to a range of markets, including trusted computing, wireless networking, authentication products and general embedded security applications. Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., NTRU's investors include Texas Instruments, Sony Corporation, Macrovision, Lehman Brothers Venture Capital, Investor AB, Granite Ventures, Greylock and 3i. For more information, please visit www.ntru.com.
Windows® is the registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Other terms and product names may be trademarks of others.
Contact
NTRU Cryptosystems, Inc.
Ari Singer, 781-418-2515
ASinger@ntru.com
###
Return To List Of Press Releases
Snacks, If that is the case I hope to be toasting you with Dom Perignon or Opus One (take your pick) at the Bellagio next Holiday Season!
Svenm
Weby, Maybe I'm missing something here but if Wave IP is involved in 30M TPM's (I think that # is high in relation to a total PC market of 120M units)sold next year at 50 cents apiece that is only 15M in booked revenue and presumably some significant accounts receiveables still outstanding on Sept. 30, 2005. Current cash reserves are probably not a sufficient cushion to comfortably allow for build out, unexpected R&D, etc. I would be surprised to not see an additional fundraise even with 15M revenue between now and November, 2005. In other words, no disconnect. The big question is how much dilution for that additional capital? I'm hoping for a few announcements (Dell, mobiles, government, take your pick) of sufficient import to move the price and slow the dilution.
JMHO,
Svenm