this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1057 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59405 readers
2952 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

don’t understand the benefit in doing this.

FSB wants backdoor in kernel. FSB notices subsystem maintainer is Russian, lives in Chelyabinsk. Can close eyes to backdoor, can pretend to review. FSB in Moscow make call to FSB in Chelyabinsk telling to buy heavy wrench at hardware store.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't think this only happens now, governments like Russia, USA, China, Israel will likely always be making these attempts.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

If that were true, surely they'd not trust ANY of their existing work, or at least any done since the Special War Operation. Wouldn't that make sense?

They've left the code, and removed the people arbitrarily. Seems a bit off to me.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks 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.