4 ms·
So your NDA allows you to acknowledge that a side-channel cryptographic compromise is possible but not give any details? That's a really funny NDA. I call bulls
by jsprinkles 15y ago
So your NDA allows you to acknowledge that a side-channel cryptographic compromise is possible but not give any details? That's a really funny NDA. I call bullshit.
Or did you violate it to tell me 'yes'?
- tptacek 15y agoThis comment doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure you know how NDA's work. I asked a specific question in my comment that you haven't answered yet.
- jsprinkles 15y agoSince I have executed one with my employer yes I do. For example if you asked me directly if such an attack was possible I cannot answer you due to my NDA even though I have personal experience with the matter. You seem really eager to answer that it is though. All of the NDAs I have signed have never said anything like "you can't say how, but you can say that we pulled it off". In fact most of the NDAs I've signed have been along the lines of "you don't talk about Fight Club". Can we deduce that you are willing to violate your NDA to write that you have observed such an attack or that you never executed an NDA regarding the specific attack? Yes.
- tptacek 15y agoUh huh. Unfortunately, I have spent years building up a resistance to Iocane powder. I'd still like to know what x86 side channel research you're writing off as "theoretical". And I'd like to know why you so stridently believe this is a nonissue.