On 03/30/2016 12:16 PM, listo factor - [email protected] wrote:
> I do not use this device, so I am wondering... There was a quite a few posts following my question, but unfortunately those quickly drifted off to the aspects of this case (good/bad government(s), compelling rich/poor vendor(s)...) that are of no interest to me, and also clearly OT for this list, and none provided the answer. Let me condense and try again: 1) Is it correct that this particular device maker designed a sophisticated hardware-based system with the specific purpose of thwarting the brute-forcing of ridiculously low-entropy user's secret? Yes/no? 2) Is it possible for the user to circumvent the potential problem of the device maker cooperating with his adversary to by-pass this protection, simply by using a pass-phrase of an appropriate length? Yes/no? Is anybody on this list user/owner of this device? (as I am not). Can anybody answer (1) and/or (2) with "yes" or "no"? I really would like to know the answer... _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
