3 ms·

To get it out of the way, I disagree with the GP. If you've looked through any number of the NSA or CIA leaks (Vault 7, for example) you'll have seen a device

To get it out of the way, I disagree with the GP. If you've looked through any number of the NSA or CIA leaks (Vault 7, for example) you'll have seen a device that looks like a standard Ethernet magjackn+ USB connector that has a little tiny processor embedded inside of it (it leaches power from the USB power rails, IIRC) that can be used to exfiltrate packets and the like. It's not impossible to get bugged when you send your PC in for repair. It's also probably unlikely considering that there's many other easier ways to grab your data.

xoa 7y ago
>If you've looked through any number of the NSA or CIA leaks (Vault 7, for example) you'll have seen a device that looks like a standard Ethernet magjackn+ USB connector that has a little tiny processor embedded inside of it (it leaches power from the USB power rails, IIRC) that can be used to exfiltrate packets and the like. I don't see how that's related? PCs right now don't make use of the kind of cryptographic lockdown iPhones do. In the case of desktops that's likely because it's assumed physical security can be taken as more of a baseline, though in the case of notebooks it's probably more just inertia. The whole "right to repair" movement is precisely because this has been changing. I mean, what you wrote directly argues the case for locking down of hardware, encrypting everything along the busses between chips or having destructive tripwires or both, and so on. >It's not impossible to get bugged when you send your PC in for repair. It's also probably unlikely considering that there's many other easier ways to grab your data. The nature of security though is that it's worth being forward looking to what will come down the line in the future. Particularly if we're talking about legislating it and putting the force of law behind making one decision or another, which tends to then be quite difficult to change. Isn't it worth being cautious about?

xoa 7y ago

>If you've looked through any number of the NSA or CIA leaks (Vault 7, for example) you'll have seen a device that looks like a standard Ethernet magjackn+ USB connector that has a little tiny processor embedded inside of it (it leaches power from the USB power rails, IIRC) that can be used to exfiltrate packets and the like. I don't see how that's related? PCs right now don't make use of the kind of cryptographic lockdown iPhones do. In the case of desktops that's likely because it's assumed physical security can be taken as more of a baseline, though in the case of notebooks it's probably more just inertia. The whole "right to repair" movement is precisely because this has been changing. I mean, what you wrote directly argues the case for locking down of hardware, encrypting everything along the busses between chips or having destructive tripwires or both, and so on. >It's not impossible to get bugged when you send your PC in for repair. It's also probably unlikely considering that there's many other easier ways to grab your data. The nature of security though is that it's worth being forward looking to what will come down the line in the future. Particularly if we're talking about legislating it and putting the force of law behind making one decision or another, which tends to then be quite difficult to change. Isn't it worth being cautious about?