Re: [tlug] RMS is at it again...again

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-10-03 13:39 +0900 (Fri), Edward Middleton wrote:

> Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> > Well, I know that for my more critical data that either they're not
> > modifying it, or my crypto is much weaker than I'd thought. I also
> > strongly suspect that they're not reading it (or my crypto is, etc.),
> > though I have less confidence in that.
> 
> Well as Stephen J. Turnbull pointed out at past Nomi.  Do you check the
> source of every piece of source before you compile and run it.  Do you
> check it sufficiently to insure a sophisticated organization with plenty
> of resources couldn't insert a Trojan without you finding it.

Nope. Nor do I check the the masks and fabricate my own chips.

However, the question is rather pointless, because the answer is
*always* "no." Not even the NSA has crypto so good that someone with
sufficient resources couldn't defeat it. As with Churchill, we've
already established that it's not a question of can or can't, it's a
question merely of cost.

Anybody who implies that you're not secure if you don't carefully check
the source code of your security-related software does not understand
security. In fact, anybody who divides the world into "secure" and "not
secure," rather than a continuum, does not understand security. (Note,
though, that mere use of these terms does not necessarially mean that
the user is not using these as broad, relative points on a continuum in
the context of a particular discussion.)

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com