[mikewarot]

So, today I'm one of the lucky 10,000[1] who finally understands what "black pilled" actually means. (Edit: The video explains what black pilled means)

As a mapper[2], that knowledge now gets subconsciously checked for matches and usefulness against all the other chunks of knowledge I'm fairly certain of.

The first thing that popped out (and there will be more over the next 24+ hours) is that y'all are black pilled about computers and security. You believe, incorrectly, that computers can't be safe AND secure AND easy to use all at the same time. I believe otherwise, and this might help convey that at some future point.

Currently my best hope is that the upcoming release of Genode offers a way forward. Their roadmap[3] features this line when describing the upcoming release

  Sketch of a capability-based desktop environment

Right now, that's where my hope rests, it's been a LONG time coming, but I think Genode might become a widely used OS if they can pull it off. If they can break enough people out of being black pilled, that is.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/

[2] https://garden.joehallenbeck.com/container/mappers-and-packe...

[3] https://genode.org/about/road-map

[listic]

I expected the link [1] to be to the explaination of what "black pilled" means, but only because I already read and remember xkcd 1053.

[newsy-combi]

Blue pill: The supplier of the thing you want is friendly and has your best interest in mind. (Suppliers can be corporations, government, the opposite sex,...)

Red pill: The supplier is corrupt and should be treated as such.

Black pill: You can't win against the corrupt supplier.

White pill: You can win/convert the supplier/find a good one in a sea of bad ones/find a complete alternative.

[listic]

Oh. It's the essence of the common meaning of it, right?

[lightedman]

"y'all are black pilled about computers and security. You believe, incorrectly, that computers can't be safe AND secure AND easy to use all at the same time"

This is basic fact. Man can make it; man can break it. I've never come across anything in my 44 years of life where this wasn't true.

[kibwen]

> Man can make it; man can break it.

Man can make mathematical proofs that will not be broken. Man is not going to disprove the Pythagorean Theorem. Software is just hifalutin math. There can exist software that, for a given mathematical specification, can be proven correct, and will not be disproven.

[lightedman]

"Man is not going to disprove the Pythagorean Theorem"

The pythagroean theorem breaks down in elliptical geometry. This is why it is a theorem and not a law.

[tptacek]

OK, produce a SHA-2 collision.

[lightedman]

I don't need to produce a collision, I just circumvent or exploit other parts of the system.

Then again, I did defeat Hermes 2 to recover my hard drive. All it took was a lot of hardware and AI and time and luck and brute force to crack the key.

[tptacek]

Then you're breaking other man-made things, not SHA2, but I didn't ask about other man-made things.

[javcasas]

Why a collision? Abuse it where it is being used. Infect the chain of certificates that guarantees that the hash you are checking is actually the one you want. Send a million legit documents with bad hashes, so that the forged one looks like another legit one. Infect the library that calculates hashes so that these specific documents have a special hardcoded hash.

[tptacek]

Because man made SHA-2, so it must be breakable. I don't dispute that there are systems humans make that are breakable (that would be weird given my career).

[javcasas]

Well, if you are that picky, then you will have to wait. MD5 was created in 1991, the first collision was found in 2004.

[tarpitt]

Okay, so you are saying that there may be a design flaw we just haven't seen yet, based on historical precedent. Which is a very weak argument, because you are just making the case for the possibility that you may be correct, and you are just pointing to a historical precedent.

Can you prove that there is no hash function that is not vulnerable? If anything man-made is vulnerable, then there cannot any invulnerable system. That is what you need to prove to win the argument. And if we can prove that any system is unbreakable, you are wrong.

[tptacek]

You want to pick a date and make a bet?