But I didn't think we were. It just a matter of thinking outside the box. If we can accept that there is a minute chance of risk (e.g., in reality, how often are ATM taken out via truck? and recognize where that risk is, wouldn't that put us further? I think we do need to be realistic in that creation of this needs to be viable and allow for access to the box for hardware upgrades/repairs.
No, that's just it. I acknowledged situations like that and their possibilities. I know people can break down walls and simply steal hardware rather than crack it via software. And?! MsMittens, anyone can say "fsck it, I can break down the wall and get ur server then HARHAR", and the general responce would be "Yeah? And? So what else is new?".

We all already know that such things are possible, and do happen. However, we are -not- talking about room security, guard security, camera protocols, transfer and hardware replacement procedures. Why? Because we are talking about the security of logging into the machine That's it. I expanded only briefly upon it (in terms of saying it was in a seperate unreachable room) so that we wouldn't get to where we are now. The "nuh uh!!! We can still BREk into teh R00m!!111five". Because we all know breaking into the room is an option, but hopefully we all remember we are talking about authentation security for the singular computer and not Management Protocol 1010. I tried to avoid that damn "nothing is secure, everything can happen!" because it's so damn obvious. I was hoping people could catch onto why I said the actual compter was in another room.. so we could move foward onto the actual authentiation system in place.

I'm sad that it didn't happen.

Also, by simply staying with a single host are we not limiting ourselves? What about a larger system of hosts (given the relatively low cost of machines and other parts) to do this? Perhaps interdependent hosts?
I agree on that But, as stated in my very first post, I'm not calculating nor planning for additional machines but for a singular 31337 high level security system. This post was never about just one machine. It was about authentation security, and the post I made was merely my thoughts on a much higher level of security than PGP meets firewall.

And I don't know if we've identified who the target audience of this concept is. This is an important factor as it determines realistic limits insofar as cost and usability. While the average Joe could use Linux (and some do -- to a degree) many do not and the inertia required to get them to do so is huge (mostly due to the "I have nothing worthwhile to steal" concept).
That's just it though. We don't -need- to determain the target audience, because it won't matter. Security is security, and code has been written for both singular systems and high level systems. As I said above: This post was never about just one machine. It was about authentation security, and the post I made was merely my thoughts on a much higher level of security than PGP meets firewall. Not every post has to be something to teach someone else. And I'm sure most of us saw this post (mind you, he wanted it to be a competition) as a place to discuss ideas on a broad spectrum rather than be limited by the typical conversation we see each and every day on this forum : The singular user on windows/linux that maybe only needs to hide their email every so often.

Are we going strictly theoretical (works great in theory but isn't necessarily viable for mass usage outside of specific environments) and fanciful or are we looking at truly viable?
Both. I am going for theoretical on a singluar high level system (example: CIA database or NSA primary SAT coordinator server) and thus it requires a lot of speculation and theory. If other's want to expand more on singular systems for normal home users, then I don't see why they can't do that as well. This thread, at least in my eyes, was meant for the discussion of authentation as a whole rather than trying to single it down to one system and thus everyone reach the exact same conclusion as everyone else has before on this forum. So, welcome both theorietical and viable solutions, but let's not shut down one or the other just yet so we can change the subject to the thread killing "nothing is secure!!11"