5 ms·
Do you think that browser makers could come under attack? Will Chrome and Firefox be required to add back doors to their "service".
by 7952 10y ago
Do you think that browser makers could come under attack? Will Chrome and Firefox be required to add back doors to their "service".
- pjc50 10y agoI don't think that there's any public actor you can say is definitely not at risk of attack. Edit: this is probably a good opportunity to remind people to donate to the Open Rights Group, who are the UK counterpart to the EFF and already actively opposing this and other bad laws.
- zmmmmm 10y agoI'm sure they will, but it's too easily answerable - open source browsers without the back doors will be trivial for end users to build. So again, it'll come back to criminalising what end users do, because in the end only restrictions on the end user can stop them using their own resources to build things.
- gcp 10y agoHistorically browsers for distribution outside the USA were required to be limited to 40-bit crypto. "(About Netscape) The "International Edition" had its effective key lengths reduced to 512 bits and 40 bits respectively (RSA_EXPORT with 40-bit RC2 or RC4 in SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0). Acquiring the 'U.S. domestic' version turned out to be sufficient hassle that most computer users, even in the U.S., ended up with the 'International' version, whose weak 40-bit encryption could be broken in a matter of days using a single personal computer." (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...) In fact, strong crypto was only allowed in 2000. Only 16 years ago!