Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alexey-salmin 772 days ago
Ever heard of thermorectal cryptanalysis?

As long as your secure world is not fully isolated but has any interactions with the physical world at all (e.g a human being somewhere receiving and reading your message with his eyes), then it's only a matter of resources allocated to trace you. You can pile up layers of "hops" through uncooperative jurisdictions -- this certainly helps to raise the bar but doesn't give you a mathematical proof of security.
1 comments
DEADMINCE 772 days ago
That's technically and theoretically true but also largely practically irrelevant.

Consider a building or a server. You can absolutely make them secure. Sure, eventually, everything can be broken/bypassed/hacked/cracked whatever, but if there is no chance of that happening for the duration that the security has to persist, then it is secure.

link
alexey-salmin 772 days ago
> Consider a building or a server. You can absolutely make them secure.

I'm not sure it's a good example. A server that you build from off-the-shelf components will likely come with the IME, providing direct tcp-to-ram access. Motherboard manufacturers probably add their own backdoors on top. We know about Gigabyte because they were caught red-handed, but how many we don't know about? How many rootkits in the SSD firmware? In hundreds of other firmware blobs installed on your Linux server right now?

I'm not even talking about Open Source backdoors which are hard as they have to be done in the open. Hardware/firmware backdoors are not in the open, they have been around for decades, they have been found and confirmed numerous times and god only know how many were NOT found.

Building a secure server nowadays is an extremely complex task, only solvable at the government level perhaps and only an a few select countries, if solvable at all. You need full control over the whole supply chain that includes tens or hundreds of thousands of corruptible employees.

link
DEADMINCE 766 days ago
I think it's a fantastic example because it's flexible enough for us to extend to make our points.

You make a good point, as when I made my comments I was considering an 'average' usecase, typically wanting to guard against malicious attacks from unknown actors on the internet.

You're talking here though about absolute security against basically a state level actor. No one else is going to be dealing with exploiting backdoors in firmware for specific targets.

But I still maintain my points is correct, it just requires substantially more money. If guarding against state actors is the requirement, that can be met by having custom or at least verified (at every stage of manufacturer) hardware. Expensive, but far from impossible. As for software issues, that's why we have stuff like SELinux and SEL4.

So yeah, I maintain you can absolutely secure a server. You just have to be clear about what the threats you are wanting to protect against are, and for most people that isn't state actors.

link