4 ms·
Interesting that you think that, because I was actually fairly unimpressed with that comment. He leads of by saying the algorithms to do it have already been cr
by benchaney 8y ago
Interesting that you think that, because I was actually fairly unimpressed with that comment. He leads of by saying the algorithms to do it have already been created without actually mentioning what algorithms he is talking about. He also claims that they somehow don't require that they run on trusted hardware which is pretty hard to believe (of course this assertion is completely unsupported in the rest of his comment).
The rest of his comment falls back to a fairly common computer security fallacy: We used it once and nothing terrible happened, so it is probably secure.
- jessaustin 8y agoLinked arXiv seems pretty straightforward?
- benchaney 8y agoIt is straightforward yes, but it doesn't allay any of my concerns. I doesn't describe the algorithms used, and it doesn't have a threat model or anything resembling security analysis. It is more about gauging the reactions and social implications of the work, than a hard technical paper. This is a very important part of the process, but it doesn't address the issues I raised.
- jessaustin 8y agoYeah I agree they should release their source, but it's silly to hold that against the comment that didn't impress you.
- benchaney 8y ago> but it's silly to hold that against the comment that didn't impress you. I don't see why. I am still convinced there are security issues. The comment under discussion made all sorts of grandiose yet completely unsupported claims. If the paper he linked had backed up his assertions, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't. Therefore I don't believe him.