4 ms·
Computers can never be 100% secure. It’s just a matter of how many zeros one is willing to spend, especially when physical access to the hardware is so easy (fo
by mensetmanusman 1y ago
Computers can never be 100% secure. It’s just a matter of how many zeros one is willing to spend, especially when physical access to the hardware is so easy (for nation states).
- Veserv 1y agoYou only need to spend barely 7 zeros to defeat any organization in the world. About half of a single tank to defeat any commercial IT system no matter how much they spend on “security”.
- beeflet 1y agoThen let them spend it instead of giving your data away for free
- busterarm 1y agoIt's a lot cheaper to just kidnap and interrogate someone with the access you need. And that's only if blackmail didn't work.
- beeflet 1y agoOkay then make them do that instead of giving your data away for free
- Veserv 1y agoThat is what they did. Salt Typhoon is what they got. This will continue to happen until critical software systems are secure against state actors and requires tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to compromise instead of millions to tens of millions (in the hardest cases).
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> when physical access to the hardware is so easy (for nation states) So where is our deep, persistent infiltration of China?
- tlb 1y agoUnknown to the public. The NSA doesn't announce when it has pwned other countries (except sometimes much later) and China doesn't reveal intrusions the way US agencies and companies are required to.
- everybodyknows 1y agoA few years back the whole US humint network in the PRC was lost, agents killed, due to use of antiquated security tech.
- h3half 1y agoDo you have links where I can read about that? Sounds interesting
- beeflet 1y ago>Computers can never be 100% secure. This is ridiculous defeatism. You are going to need more 0's than exist in the global economy to crack many cryptosystems.
- bongodongobob 1y agoI don't need to crack crypto, I just need to find an admin that can be blackmailed.
- beeflet 1y agoThen design the system so that there is not a single source of administrative failure.
- breppp 1y agoand also make sure to design a system without any bugs
- beeflet 1y agoYou should look into cryptography. It actually is possible to design open systems provably without bugs or single sources of failure. It's possible to build mechanisms of plausible deniability that are largely immune to rubber-hose attacks. It's also possible to design systems with an intermediate level of security. With your attitude, you might as well leave your house unlocked because any competent locksmith could break in.
- breppp 1y agoI am aware of cryptography, but how does strong cryptography prevents these? https://www.heartbleed.com https://www.heartbleed.com https://www.blackduck.com/blog/understanding-apple-goto-fail-vulnerability-2.html https://www.blackduck.com/blog/understanding-apple-goto-fail...
- wakawaka28 1y agoThey can be close enough to 100% as you like. Even if that was true, it does not excuse the morons who built the stuff for easy spying instead of reasonable security.