610
Anon predicts the future (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

This is blatantly not true, it would be extremely simple to circumvent. How do you "tie" the cert to a specific hardware without trusting manufacturers? You just can't, it's like putting a padlock on a pizzabox.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As with everything, trust is required eventually. It's more about reducing the amount of trust required than removing it entirely. It's the same with HTTPS - website certificates only work if you trust the root certificate authorities, for example. Root manufacturer keys may only be certified if they have passed some level of trust with the root authority/authorities. Proving that trust is well-founded is more a physical issue than an algorithmic one. As it is with root CAs it may involve physical cybersecurity audits, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yep, totally fair. It's kind of crazy actually how we all trust that stuff, and when there's a breach people just want to expire certificates more often etc.

    I bet there is a better way but as long as no one is paying, we're stuck with this mess. I have programmed stuff with x509 in the medical sector, what a trusty spaghetti mess that was, but when you finally got your cert, you could basically do whatever.

    Sorry for the rant 😅 I just want to show people that even if the mathematics behind RSA is fantastic and secure, the human side is always there to break that 🤷🏼‍♀️.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent