30 ms·
As to (2), my point was that I have no way of doing it. As to (3), I am not "religious about open source". My point was that at the very least I would like to
by jwr 18y ago
As to (2), my point was that I have no way of doing it.
As to (3), I am not "religious about open source". My point was that at the very least I would like to be able to verify what the output is, which I can't.
Your arguments about companies' reputations being on the line are something I don't buy. This is hacker news, I buy technical arguments. And if you believe "reputable companies" don't do strange things with your keys or our data, may I kindly remind you of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
Regarding (1), thanks for the reference, I will certainly learn more about the technology involved.
- tptacek 18y agoI don't think it's really reasonable to rule out hardware security simply because jwr from Hacker News isn't capable of assessing it, but I don't blame you for not using it.
- jwr 18y agoIt isn't just me, Bruce Schneier doesn't trust the vendors either, and for good reasons: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/the_doghouse_ra.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/the_doghouse_r... (yes, I know this is about a hardware enclosure, not about a drive, that's actually lucky because someone could _check_ if the bytes are actually encrypted) Now let's hear you mock Bruce :-)