3 ms·
For what it's worth I unflagged/vouched for the article because I think the premise and the comments refuting it are an interesting discussion. Even if he's wr
by CPLX 11y ago
For what it's worth I unflagged/vouched for the article because I think the premise and the comments refuting it are an interesting discussion.
Even if he's wrong, the reason why he's wrong is informative.
- lisper 11y agoThanks! I really did want to respond to this. It's possible that I'm wrong, but not for the reasons given so far. Once you have a copy of the flash you can always get back to the current state by installing a copy of the flash in its current state. Then you can simply brute-force the PIN.
- CPLX 11y agoIs that true though? Other commenters are arguing that the encryption of that flash chip is a value that, while based on the PIN, is sufficiently long as to resist brute force encryption. Is it possible that you're mistaken?
- lisper 11y agoOf course it's possible I'm mistaken. But not because of any of the reasons given here so far.
- msherry 11y agoHe's not claiming that you can brute-force the encryption key -- he's proposing another way to brute-force the PIN itself that won't trigger exponential timeouts or auto-wipe of the device. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but let's at least make sure we're clear what his argument is first.