3 ms·
without the source, it is not verifiable. it could be making a copy and sending it in an encrypted side-channel for example to their overlords.
by jamesdwilson 11y ago
without the source, it is not verifiable. it could be making a copy and sending it in an encrypted side-channel for example to their overlords.
- zxexz 11y agoYou can definitely verify the code without the source. It may often be much harder, but it is not un-verifiable. Please stop spreading misinformation like this. With all the wonderful reverse-engingeering tools, dissassemblers, debuggers, etc. available, and the numerous massive communities that use them, it seems pretty out-there that you could seriously think such a thing...
- jamesdwilson 11y agoskype is encrypted and backdoored. how can you know the same isn't true of whatsapp?
- zxexz 11y agoPeople have verified that Skype is NOT secure[0]. Also Skype has not claimed to use end to end encryption. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/scorecard-update-we-cannot-credit-skype-end-end-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/scorecard-update-we-ca...
- pfg 11y agoObfuscation would be a better term here. They've made it hard to reverse-engineer, but certainly not impossible.
- cortesoft 11y agoWell, people were able to figure out skype was not secure without the source.
- AgentME 11y agoIt's much easier to verify the source of a program once, and then verify the future changes to the source code with the aid of a diff. With a binary, a change can result in a very different binary that takes a lot of effort comparable to the original verification all over again.
- criddell 11y ago> without the source, it is not verifiable And would you also claim that without the source, you can't find security problems?