3 ms·
The comparison to padlocks and bolt cutters is not relevant, they are quite different shapes of problems. A certificate that is weak enough that it should not b
by rcxdude 2mo ago
The comparison to padlocks and bolt cutters is not relevant, they are quite different shapes of problems. A certificate that is weak enough that it should not be trusted in any case where it matters is actively harmful, not just mildly less helpful.
(This is true in general: if you add a trust signal that is mainly just a bit of effort to broadcast, you'll find that scammers and fraudsters will show that signal much more reliably than honest actors. For example, every email spammer has DMARC and DKIM set up absolutely perfectly)
- akoboldfrying 2mo agoI guess you're making the argument that, while padlocks sometimes protect things of low value, thus justifying the use of cheap, easily broken locks in those cases, the times where authenticity of an image is important are nearly always cases of high importance, meaning that there's no case where an assertion that's actually fairly cheap to forge (assuming a similar "lighter" glitch attack works on phones, less than $1000 for a modern smartphone that may get bricked, a soldering iron and an afternoon's work) makes sense? Perhaps so. It's certainly easy to think of images or video clips of very high importance, and outside of kids uploading AI clips to Reddit and pretending they're real, I can't think of any similarly low-stakes cases for image authentication. What do you think of my digital signature idea?