Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by davideous 3689 days ago
Yes, pritambaral described what I'm trying to point-out.

In think the "vs" in the title is saying this: they had to choose between open source (that is functional meaning you can really use the code and re-flash the device) and the secure hardware. It was a trade off of one "vs" the other, and this is their reasoning behind that trade-off.
1 comments
sigmar 3689 days ago
Open source doesn't necessarily mean that you can put it on the device. I'm sure a lot of Yubico's critics would be happy with seeing the code even if it can't be flashed.
link
davideous 3689 days ago
Yes, it would technically meet the Open Source Initiative's definition (https://opensource.org/osd), but if there was no way to re-flash the device, no way to verify the binary on the device, or possibly even no way build a binary (which may require proprietary tools under NDA from the chip manufacturer) -- I think a lot of critics would still be critics, but I could be wrong.

If Yubico did this it would be very interesting to see the reaction.

link
jevinskie 3689 days ago
It would allow a third party to discover a vulnerability similar to the one in the Neo just by just reading the code.
link
mavhc 3689 days ago
The general issue is when all hardware has software in, in the end it has to be open source. Going even further: The distinction between hardware, firmware, and software is logically irrelevant in terms of trust.
link