4 ms·
> Yeah, he's full of it. We in high-assurance community and even the cypherpunks have been telling people forever it was being abused. Because people were abusi
by mercurial 11y ago
> Yeah, he's full of it. We in high-assurance community and even the cypherpunks have been telling people forever it was being abused. Because people were abusing it and its design practically asked for it. These were ignored as externalities by people motivated by convenience, feature bloat, price, and/or profit. Even getting it down to almost identical cost/speed didn't help if it lacked unnecessary feature X.
So, you're saying that Snowden is right, that computer people as a whole were not aware of it. There is a huge difference between a theoretical risk and someone coming forward with a huge amount of proof that it is, in fact, happening right now.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoIt was a theoretical risk pre-Snowden that PC and neteork security was horrible? No, it was in thd news every day with recommendations from industry and government on how to counter a lot of it. Further, academia was teaching the INFOSEC people about high assurance methods from the old days. Such things were mostly ignored despite being in media, conferences, government certifications... yoh name it. Interestinv enough, Snowden had seeminglh no impact on number of high assurance dsvelopments out there. So, even as bad as it is, people aren't doing the things that stop even NSA during evaluations and which they themselves use for most critical stuff.