4 ms·

Thanks. Your speculations sound reasonable. I have no idea what kind of error checking procedure the CPU industry uses, but it is hard to believe that Intel et

Thanks. Your speculations sound reasonable. I have no idea what kind of error checking procedure the CPU industry uses, but it is hard to believe that Intel et al. do not use highly integrated proof tools that cover multiple design layers. I know that these are very complex systems, that you can't cover certain cases with proof tools, and cost might be a factor at play - but I believe that there is interest in private and public markets to get hands on a stack that starts with a higher security threshold compared with what we have now.

shakna 8y ago
> but I believe that there is interest in private and public markets to get hands on a stack that starts with a higher security threshold compared with what we have now. There's certainly some interest, in some parts of industry. NASA [0] has an FPGA board they made to be more rugged, for CubeSats, which had multiple layers for preventing program corruption. I'd be shocked if it had a backdoor into it, and would expect parts of the system would make it more resistant to tampering. Unfortunately, I also expect that if any chip becomes something popular among consumers, state actors will push their weight and get their weaknesses. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1998.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime...