this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1059 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

60055 readers
3537 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Same could be said for any intelligence service . it is better to focus on preventing and detecting these things through analysis and code reviews.

And they could just offer boatloads of cash to someone in another country to insert something so this doesn't really prevent anything it only isolates a certain subset of people.

[–] Enfors@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So if we can't completely 100% deal with a problem, we shouldn't even try? I mean, you're correct, but we can't solve all problems at once. If we deal with at least one, then we've made progress. Then we can try to deal with the next one.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No but this doesn't do anything to "deal" with the problem as anyone can built up trust like Jian tan showed. The argument that this makes us more secure is like saying closed source is more secure cause the hackers dont have access to the source.

We have evidence of the US messing with nist standards so by that same logic should we assume all us actors are bad ?

The solution is to verify the code maybe have multiple people from different locations have to review stuff. Build more checks into the process.

The whole point of it being open is that it can be reviewed. It shouldn't matter where the contributor is from as all code should be subjected to a rigorous review process.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We have evidence of the US messing with nist standards

What... You realize that NIST is literally a government agency? It's part of the United States Department of Commerce. It's literally the US government. Are you saying that the government is messing with itself? What does that even mean?

[–] Enfors@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

What's so strange about that? It's not like the government - any government - is just one person. Of course some people in government can mess with other people in government. Even people in the same office mess with each other. Intra-office politics, and so on.