8 ms·

"I can't prove it." I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. "But Intel has gone on record stating th

"I can't prove it." I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. "But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor" It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. "People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor." I am curious about that. Got a link? "The government can be overly paranoid." No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. "People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come." Obviously, one of them is hiding backdoors. Not saying that closed source software has to be backdoored, it just does not raise confidence. "It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door" Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? Sounds like a solution in similar spirit. "If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant" Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? How would you make sure that a warrant would be required and that the private key would not leak?

charcircuit 5y ago
>I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. I'm not sure what you expect from me. I similarly can't prove that almost every piece of hardware and software isn't backdoored, but it would be silly to think that it all is especially if you have experience designing hardware or software products. At least the people who do talk to me about being afraid of the ME often are overly paranoid and don't have a good understanding of hardware / software. These people often think ARM's TrustZone is an equivalent to ME. >It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. Intel is kind of in an impossible situation then. They can't prove there is no backdoor because it wouldn't be much of a backdoor if they showed you. You have to trust Intel that they are developing a secure product. It is Intel's best interest to develop a secure product. >I am curious about that. Got a link? I can't link to something that doesn't exist, but there have been a few people / teams who have attempted reversing it which you can find by googling. >No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. Sure people can be paranoid, but it can get in the way of them living their life. >Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? This seems like a logistical nightmare, but something similar already exists for emergency purposes such as for fire fighters. >Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? People who sign warrants have a hardware device which holds their private key. If this device gets lost or stolen the key can be invalidated. The private key wouldn't leak because you can't access the key itself. The hardware device could potentially also have a rate limit like 100 machines per day to limit abuse.

charcircuit 5y ago

>I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. I'm not sure what you expect from me. I similarly can't prove that almost every piece of hardware and software isn't backdoored, but it would be silly to think that it all is especially if you have experience designing hardware or software products. At least the people who do talk to me about being afraid of the ME often are overly paranoid and don't have a good understanding of hardware / software. These people often think ARM's TrustZone is an equivalent to ME. >It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. Intel is kind of in an impossible situation then. They can't prove there is no backdoor because it wouldn't be much of a backdoor if they showed you. You have to trust Intel that they are developing a secure product. It is Intel's best interest to develop a secure product. >I am curious about that. Got a link? I can't link to something that doesn't exist, but there have been a few people / teams who have attempted reversing it which you can find by googling. >No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. Sure people can be paranoid, but it can get in the way of them living their life. >Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? This seems like a logistical nightmare, but something similar already exists for emergency purposes such as for fire fighters. >Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? People who sign warrants have a hardware device which holds their private key. If this device gets lost or stolen the key can be invalidated. The private key wouldn't leak because you can't access the key itself. The hardware device could potentially also have a rate limit like 100 machines per day to limit abuse.