4 ms·
Oh. Now I'm reading davideous' comment much differently. But the title of the blog post (ie "vs") makes it seem like they aren't making it open source so that t
by sigmar 10y ago
Oh. Now I'm reading davideous' comment much differently. But the title of the blog post (ie "vs") makes it seem like they aren't making it open source so that the hardware is secure.
- davideous 10y agoYes, pritambaral described what I'm trying to point-out. In think the "vs" in the title is saying this: they had to choose between open source (that is functional meaning you can really use the code and re-flash the device) and the secure hardware. It was a trade off of one "vs" the other, and this is their reasoning behind that trade-off.
- sigmar 10y agoOpen source doesn't necessarily mean that you can put it on the device. I'm sure a lot of Yubico's critics would be happy with seeing the code even if it can't be flashed.
- davideous 10y agoYes, it would technically meet the Open Source Initiative's definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), but if there was no way to re-flash the device, no way to verify the binary on the device, or possibly even no way build a binary (which may require proprietary tools under NDA from the chip manufacturer) -- I think a lot of critics would still be critics, but I could be wrong. If Yubico did this it would be very interesting to see the reaction.
- jevinskie 10y agoIt would allow a third party to discover a vulnerability similar to the one in the Neo just by just reading the code.
- mavhc 10y agoThe general issue is when all hardware has software in, in the end it has to be open source. Going even further: The distinction between hardware, firmware, and software is logically irrelevant in terms of trust.