4 ms·

well, also indefinite time and physical access.

• saurik 1y ago
  Which is what the provider themselves have, by definition. The people who run these services are literally sitting next to the box day in and day out... this isn't "provably" anything. You can trust them not to take advantage of the fact that they own the hardware, and you can even claim it makes it ever so slightly harder for them to do so, but this isn't something where the word "provably" is anything other than a lie.
  • anon721656321 1y ago
    yeah, for a moment I was reading it as being a holomorphic encryption type setup, which I think is the only case where you can say 'provably private'. It's better than nothing, I guess... But if you placed the server at the NSA, and said "there is something on here that you really want, it's currently powered on and connected to the network, and the user is accessing it via ssh", it seems relatively straightforward for them to intercept and access.
  • anon5739483 1y ago
    [dead]
• sublimefire 1y ago
  If you trust the provider then it does not make it much better to use such architecture. If you do not then at least the execution should be inside a confidential system so that even soldering would not get you to data