Re: [Cryptography] Understanding state can be important.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote: [look it up on metzdowd]
There is no physical basis for security we're truly certain of to even be built any more.
And we allowed it to happen.
Cry baby cry. Yet whenever anyone suggests actually exploring parameters (you know, doing work) of potential solutions such as open fabs... it's all omg, cost, and we're stupid it's impossible, followed by crickets. Baby is as baby does.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:31:45PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote: [look it up on metzdowd]
There is no physical basis for security we're truly certain of to even be built any more.
And we allowed it to happen.
Cry baby cry. Yet whenever anyone suggests actually exploring parameters (you know, doing work) of potential solutions such as open fabs... it's all omg, cost, and we're stupid it's impossible, followed by crickets. Baby is as baby does.
The only thing that is truly certain is that fools will keep searching for certainty and security. For the rest of us, we can choose to buy hardware with auditable silicon layouts, or sell ourselves to the vendor who gives something faster, cheaper and easier (for them to blend your mind to a fine mush). Or maybe, what is the point of hashing an archive to ensure certainty of leaked material, when you are quite uncertain of who the silicon doing the hashing actually works for. Nobody's holding a gun to my head forcing me to buy closed source silicon. But then, I suppose I still voluntarily get on a highway filled with future cases of unintended acceleration. I want the crumple zone of the latest truck designed to absorb energy with the engine controls from the 80's
participants (2)
-
grarpamp -
Troy Benjegerdes