4 ms·
>If one already has an effective level of security say, by way of illustration, one that protects against 99 percent of foreseeable threats -- is it reasonable
by SamuelAdams 7y ago
>If one already has an effective level of security say, by way of illustration, one that protects against 99 percent of foreseeable threats -- is it reasonable to incur massive further costs to move slightly closer to optimality and attain a 99.5 percent level of protection?
Except that's not the case. Encryption is mathematically proven to be 100% secure. Assuming the application was coded / implemented correctly, the only thing capable of unlocking encrypted secrets is the secret key.
AG Barr wants to move it from 100% secure to "99.5% secure". Not the other way around.
- brandmeyer 7y agoIMO, this almost-but-not-quite-100% attitude is still the right frame of mind. The remaining percentage represents exfiltration by means of hacking the device through its various vulnerabilities. Sometimes that exfiltration takes the form of encryption keys, and sometimes its the user data that the attacker was after in the first place.
- roywiggins 7y ago> Encryption is mathematically proven to be 100% secure Well... no. We're pretty sure that factoring large primes is intractable, but nobody has actually proven it. And we know it's not that hard for a quantum computer. Modern cryptography is certainly not 100% secure for all time.
- gnode 7y ago> mathematically proven to be 100% secure We still don't know how to prove the difficulty of any computing problems which the security of conventional cryptosystems rely on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_hardness_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_hardness_assumpt... Some systems, like the one time pad and quantum cryptography have security which doesn't rely on computational hardness, however.