Re: [mm] OpenSparc -- the open source chip (except for the crypto parts)

[Ben Laurie]

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I think that's blatantly untrue. For example, if I look at an AND
gate, I can be absolutely sure about its security properties.

An AND gate isn't Turing Equivalent.

Nor are most algorithms.

Rice's theorem says you can't _always_ solve this problem. It says
nothing about figuring out special cases.

Any modern processor is sufficiently larger than an AND gate that it
is no longer tractable. It isn't even possible to describe the
security properties one would need to (formally) prove.

I won't debate that, but its not a consequence of Rice's Theorem.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]