Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Marcos el Ruptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
To be sure that implementation does not contain back-doors, one needs
not only some source code but also a proof that the source code one
has is the source of the implementation.
Nonsense. Total nonsense. A half-decent reverse engineer does not
need the source code and can easily determine the exact operation of
all the security-related components from the compiled executables,
extracted ROM/EPROM code or reversed FPGA/ASIC layout

I'm glad to know that you have managed to disprove Rice's
Theorem. Could you explain to us how you did it? I suspect there's an
ACM Turing Award awaiting you.

Being slightly less sarcastic for the moment, I'm sure that a good
reverse engineer can figure out approximately what a program does by
looking at the binaries and approximately what an ASIC does given
good equipment to get the layout. What you can't do, full stop, is
know that there are no unexpected security related behaviors in the
hardware or software. That's just not possible.

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

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




"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]

Reply via email to