[117864] in Cypherpunks
Re: chips, trust, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William H. Geiger III)
Mon Sep 13 15:13:53 1999
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:52:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199909131551.LAA13422@domains.invweb.net>
From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cypherpunks@openpgp.net>
Reply-To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>
In <199909131540.RAA04311@mail.replay.com>, on 09/13/99
at 11:42 AM, Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> said:
>> Would it be practical for a huge State to force CPU chip
>>manufacturers to design their chips with backdoors?
>There are a lot of people at the Fabs who need green cards.
What is the practicality of creating a "backdoor" in a general purpose
CPU?
While it seems it would be quite simple to do this to a hardware RNG or
hardware based crypto algorithms trying to backdoor the CPU itself appears
to be a much more complicated task as the attacker does not have any prior
knowledge of what code the user will be running.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
Talk About PGP on IRC EFNet Channel: #pgp Nick: whgiii
Hi Jeff!! :)
---------------------------------------------------------------
