4 ms·

> immudb doesn't actually seem to replace the use case when you need something actually tamper-proof. I think that's an unrealistic requirement. There's tamper

> immudb doesn't actually seem to replace the use case when you need something actually tamper-proof. I think that's an unrealistic requirement. There's tamper-evident and tamper-resistant but AFAIK nothing is tamper proof. Best you can do is an HSM with a tamper resistant HMAC with keys and a running checksum in unrecoverable ROM coupled to the packaging.

capableweb 5y ago
> nothing is tamper proof I beg the differ. If I place a signed message in the Bitcoin chain, can you then modify that message? If you can prove that you can somehow modify the message, I'll give you $1,000,000 USD tomorrow.
- k_ 5y ago
  Not after you post it, but by infecting your device before you make that message, and tampering when you place it in the Bitcoin chain
  - capableweb 5y ago
    So you agree, once it's on the blockchain, it's tamper-proof?
- akiselev 5y ago
  That's "tamper proof" in the colloquial sense. As a term of art, it means something very specific. For example, see FIPS 140-2/3 [1] It makes no sense to say that the blockchain is tamper proof because the blockchain is just information. Tamper "proofness"/resistance is first a property of the devices storing the information - once you get into custody chains, provenance documents, etc. that's when a system becomes tamper resistant. At best the blockchain as a system is "tamper evident" in the colloquial sense because the network of all the other nodes decides which bits of information form the "real" blockchain. However, without verifying the (physical) identity and data integrity of the devices that run (at least?) 50%+1 of the nodes, you have no idea whether the system has been tampered with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140
- munk-a 5y ago
  If you want to raise the bet to a few billion dollars I'll happily take you on. But that's just a question of scale - if you have a rando-blockchain you use for immutability internally then how trivial would it be for me to spin up five servers to outhash you and rewrite history?

capableweb 5y ago

> nothing is tamper proof I beg the differ. If I place a signed message in the Bitcoin chain, can you then modify that message? If you can prove that you can somehow modify the message, I'll give you $1,000,000 USD tomorrow.

k_ 5y ago
Not after you post it, but by infecting your device before you make that message, and tampering when you place it in the Bitcoin chain
- capableweb 5y ago
  So you agree, once it's on the blockchain, it's tamper-proof?
akiselev 5y ago
That's "tamper proof" in the colloquial sense. As a term of art, it means something very specific. For example, see FIPS 140-2/3 [1] It makes no sense to say that the blockchain is tamper proof because the blockchain is just information. Tamper "proofness"/resistance is first a property of the devices storing the information - once you get into custody chains, provenance documents, etc. that's when a system becomes tamper resistant. At best the blockchain as a system is "tamper evident" in the colloquial sense because the network of all the other nodes decides which bits of information form the "real" blockchain. However, without verifying the (physical) identity and data integrity of the devices that run (at least?) 50%+1 of the nodes, you have no idea whether the system has been tampered with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140
munk-a 5y ago
If you want to raise the bet to a few billion dollars I'll happily take you on. But that's just a question of scale - if you have a rando-blockchain you use for immutability internally then how trivial would it be for me to spin up five servers to outhash you and rewrite history?