3 ms·
People usually start off by debating the principles related to spying, surveilance, backdoors, especially in China related articles. Once the fact that most lik
by buran77 6y ago
People usually start off by debating the principles related to spying, surveilance, backdoors, especially in China related articles. Once the fact that most likely Intel CPUs or Windows can be safely considered "backdoored" is brought up, those same people pivot to "who backdoored it matters".
No, it does not. A backdoor is a backdoor and once it's out there it will sooner or later be used by everyone with enough resources, making the "who" irrelevant. Any Windows or Intel backdoors are very likely now in the hands of all major intelligence services around the world.
But let me frame it in a different, albeit slightly crass way: if you have a turd floating in your soup can you honestly say there's a good answer for "who put it there?" that will make you like that soup more?
- itomato 6y agoa cpu backdoor is not akin to a crouton. someone prepared turd soup for you and you ate it right up until the moment you realized it. that's the effect of a backdoor in your stupid example.
- buran77 6y ago> a cpu backdoor is not akin to a crouton Of course not, croutons are generally appreciated, while backdoors are only appreciated by ignorant people, hackers, spies, and dictators. > your stupid example That's harsh given that you don't even seem to have processed what the example was conveying: > you ate it right up until the moment you realized it So then let's try again: once you realize the turd is there will knowing it's Russian, Chinese, or from the US make a difference on whether to keep eating or not? On whether to complain or not? Because GP claiming "Backdoored by whom is an important real-world distinction" suggests you, the customer, keep eating and don't complain if you like the answer. I find the analogy to be reasonably valid.