3 ms·
Define "secure". In too many cases it is a marketing buzzword. At some point those of us who are security professionals really need to get serious about pushi
by patcheudor 11y ago
Define "secure". In too many cases it is a marketing buzzword. At some point those of us who are security professionals really need to get serious about pushing for some standard language and certification in this space. I'd love to see a rating system which makes it clear which attacks this platform can defend agains. As an example, is it only secure if locked in a secure facility, protected from physical access or can it exist in a physically hostile environment? How much of it can be exposed to an attack surface before it's not secure? At this moment I'm aware of several physical layer attacks that this would absolutely fail to protect against so I question why exactly this gets me anything more than any other hardware platform.
- digi_owl 11y agoSeems to me that these days secure is when it gives NSA pause for thought...
- 7952 11y agoIn a world of millions of networked devices it seems redundant to classify any one single element as "secure". The secure device cannot possibly trust any other device, and those devices in turn cannot trust the secure device. By necessity we use a combination of different systems, and any one rogue system could undermine the rest. The only way to make that safe is to understand how different systems interact and ensure they are sand boxed from one another. This is particularly difficult when a single machine can have several processors running their own platform.
- ryao 11y agoIt is by one of the CoreBoot developers, who considers an entirely blob-free open source system to be secure.