3 ms·
> Not only is this seen as perfectly fine, it's widely regarded as a security best practice. It's not "perfectly fine"; but the alternative is millions of comp
by progval 5y ago
> Not only is this seen as perfectly fine, it's widely regarded as a security best practice.
It's not "perfectly fine"; but the alternative is millions of computers with known security vulnerabilities exploitable by anyone, which is far far worse than a potential backdoor used by large companies or governments.
- xg15 5y agoYou could make that same argument in favour of the e2e backdoor: "The risk of child groomers, terrorists etc running rampant is far greater than the risk of a few chats getting leaked." At the very least, this would need some quantification of risk: Probability and impact of keys getting leaked vs probability and impact of not installing a backdoor.
- progval 5y ago> At the very least, this would need some quantification of risk Yes, of course. And in the case of autoupdates: 1. the risk of finding a RCE in any random PC within the next few years is close to 100% 2. an unpatched RCE is strictly worse than a backdoor 3. how many computers won't be patched without forced autoupdates? In the case of e2ee, I'm afraid it's much harder to quantify, though.