My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
quality of message encryption is moot.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon disdains politicians.

followups trimmed to: comp.misc

In comp.misc Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has
> a backdoor. and the Therefore, anything viewable in clear
> on that device is insecure quality of message encryption is moot.

Well I would say Gordon could be correct. I say that due to
Intel ME and probably AMD SE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

Sn!pe wrote:
> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> quality of message encryption is moot.
>
meet me half way

% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sn!pe wrote:
> > My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> > Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> > quality of message encryption is moot.
> >
> meet me half way

[puzzled] Is that encrypted? Maybe it's encrapted.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the incipient socialist paradise.

Sn!pe wrote:
> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sn!pe wrote:
>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>
>> meet me half way
>
> [puzzled] Is that encrypted? Maybe it's encrapted.
>
half way between your house and mine

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.

Make computing safe again!

<https://www.spielezar.ch/products/34316-genzo_theme_large_default/the-army-painter-precision-side-cutter.webp>

> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> quality of message encryption is moot.

Nobody wants the data cattle to have access to strong encryption.

--
1. Hitchhiker 13: (17) "Funny," he intoned funerally, "how just when you
think life can't possibly get any worse it suddenly does."

% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 15:18 this Friday (GMT):
> Sn!pe wrote:
>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>
> meet me half way

Where would that be?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote:
> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 15:18 this Friday (GMT):
>> Sn!pe wrote:
>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>
>> meet me half way
>
>
> Where would that be?
>
the north arctic

% wrote:
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 15:18 this Friday (GMT):
>>> Sn!pe wrote:
>>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and
>>>> the
>>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>>
>>> meet me half way
>>
>>
>> Where would that be?
>>
> the north arctic

no , the north atlantic , sorry

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:52:47 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

>
> Well I would say Gordon could be correct. I say that due to
> Intel ME and probably AMD SE:
>

The Intel ME can be disabled in the motherboard BIOS. Whenever
I build a new machine it is one of the first things that I
disable.

Also, the Linux kernel can be configured and built without
the MEI driver by disabling CONFIG_INTEL_MEI, which is located
here:

drivers/misc/mei

However, it is almost certain that most distros, and all of the
mainstream distros, have it enabled by default.

If you a Linux distro lackey, as most users are, then your
motherboard and your kernel both include Intel ME and therefore
you have no one to blame but your stupid, idiot, self.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sn!pe wrote:
> > % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sn!pe wrote:
> >>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> >>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> >>> quality of message encryption is moot.
> >>>
> >> meet me half way
> >
> > [puzzled] Is that encrypted? Maybe it's encrapted.
>
> half way between your house and mine

Somewhere off the coast of Newfoundland? It's a bit wet there.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the incipient socialist paradise.

yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:

> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
> > My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> >
>
> Make computing safe again!
>
> <https://www.spielezar.ch/products/34316-genzo_theme_large_default/the-army-painter-precision-side-cutter.webp>
>
> >
> > Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> > quality of message encryption is moot.
> >
>
> Nobody wants the data cattle to have access to strong encryption.
>

Granted!

ISTM that a secure payload would need to be encrypted on a stand-alone
machine, air-gapped and never to be connected online. Once encrypted,
the payload would go by sneakernet to a networked machine for onward
transmission. When the encrypted payload reached its destination it
would once again go by sneakernet to another air-gapped machine for
decryption. In this way the payload would never be seen in clear on a
networked machine.

To restate in slightly different words:

My pet rock Gordon assumes that every networked device has a back door.
Therefore the pursuit of privacy is futile because anything viewable in
clear on any of those networked devices is observable, regardless of the
quality of encryption used in transmission.

Nice side-cutters, BTW.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the expected socialist paradise.

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

/!\ The following should be read with a mix of panic and a smile; you
decide, what to apply to which parts.

> ISTM that a secure payload would need to be encrypted on a stand-alone
> machine, air-gapped and never to be connected online.

There are many ways even air-gapped systems can or do leak data, that
may leak the keys or partial information about them.

IMO every system that exists on the same side of the singularities as we
do *is* connected with the rest. It just may be harder to get the data
you want.

We had leaking CRTs which could be read over a distance, AM leaks using
rhythms of loops while computing, blinking drive LEDs, RPM modulated
fans, ultrasonic connections between laptops in exams, and additionally
we are in the

__ __ ___ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ _
| \/ |_ _| \| |_ _\ \/ / |_ _|_ _ __(_)__| |___| |
| |\/| || || .` || | > < | || ' \(_-< / _` / -_)_|
|_| |_|___|_|\_|___/_/\_\ |___|_||_/__/_\__,_\___(_)

era and I definitely will not bet that ARM and RISCV chips or even FPGAs
don't come "pre-infected" in a comparable way. So who knows which
Gremlins in other chips are able to play e.g. modem over power-line and
whatnot.

So better assume that every system that is not made exclusively from
logic gates[0] you've baked yourself in your kitchen already comes
infected with spy hard- and software. And thinking about this shouldn't
stop without a look at the power supply[1]. Some leaks still may exist
no matter what you use to build the gates, but at least the foreign
gremlins would stay outside.

TL;DR:
__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
\ \ / /__( )_ _ ___ __| |___ ___ _ __ ___ __| | | | |
\ \/\/ / -_)/| '_/ -_) / _` / _ \/ _ \ ' \/ -_) _` |_|_|_|
\_/\_/\___| |_| \___| \__,_\___/\___/_|_|_\___\__,_(_|_|_)

____________

[0]: Jeri Makes Integrated Circuits
<https://hackaday.com/2010/03/10/jeri-makes-integrated-circuits/#more-22290>

Transistor Fabrication: So Simple A Child Can Do It
<https://hackaday.com/2010/05/13/transistor-fabrication-so-simple-a-child-can-do-it/>

LLTP - Light Logic Transistorless Processor
<https://hackaday.io/project/172413-lltp-light-logic-transistorless-processor>

Mechanical Logic Gates With Amplification
<https://hackaday.com/2024/09/20/mechanical-logic-gates-with-amplification/>

[1]: Charging An Electric Supercar With Lemons, Kids, And The Sun
<https://hackaday.com/2018/06/29/charging-an-electric-supercar-with-lemons-kids-and-the-sun/>

--
3. Hitchhiker 1: (25) "The point is, you see," said Ford, "that there
is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself going mad.
You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later."

On 11-Oct-24 10:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
> quality of message encryption is moot.
>

An initial question is what exactly is meant by "backdoor". Any
networked device that is capable of remote update by the vendor can
presumably be updated by the vendor to do anything that any device on
your network can do. But this does not imply that anyone else can do
that. Of course it does mean that you security depends on the security
of the vendor, which is an unknown quantity. This is partly why the few
remotely updatable devices that I do own are fire-walled off from the
rest of my internal network.

Few networked devices accept incoming connections, for the simple reason
that they're unlikely to get past a gateway router. Most work by making
outgoing connections to the vendor's server. The better implementations
require an authenticated server certificate, which makes impersonation
of the vendor pretty much impossible. Without a certificate the
intending intruder may engage in something like a DNS cache poisoning
attack, but they have become more difficult over the years.

If one is to worry about back-doors, the main vulnerability is the
router itself, and this has indeed been a problem in the past,
especially where the ISP has the ability to update firmware or change
settings, because now one is dependent on the security of the ISP, which
is not always been up to the task.

Commercially supplied routers have a bad record of vulnerabilities. I
use a small single board computer as a gateway instead.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11-Oct-24 10:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>
>
> An initial question is what exactly is meant by "backdoor". Any
> networked device that is capable of remote update by the vendor can
> presumably be updated by the vendor to do anything that any device on
> your network can do. But this does not imply that anyone else can do
> that. Of course it does mean that you security depends on the security
> of the vendor, which is an unknown quantity. This is partly why the few
> remotely updatable devices that I do own are fire-walled off from the
> rest of my internal network.
>
> Few networked devices accept incoming connections, for the simple reason
> that they're unlikely to get past a gateway router. Most work by making
> outgoing connections to the vendor's server. The better implementations
> require an authenticated server certificate, which makes impersonation
> of the vendor pretty much impossible. Without a certificate the
> intending intruder may engage in something like a DNS cache poisoning
> attack, but they have become more difficult over the years.
>
> If one is to worry about back-doors, the main vulnerability is the
> router itself, and this has indeed been a problem in the past,
> especially where the ISP has the ability to update firmware or change
> settings, because now one is dependent on the security of the ISP, which
> is not always been up to the task.
>
> Commercially supplied routers have a bad record of vulnerabilities. I
> use a small single board computer as a gateway instead.
>
> Sylvia.
>
i have nothing to hide so i don't do anything

On 14-Oct-24 11:35 am, % wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 11-Oct-24 10:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the
>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>
>>
>> An initial question is what exactly is meant by "backdoor". Any
>> networked device that is capable of remote update by the vendor can
>> presumably be updated by the vendor to do anything that any device on
>> your network can do. But this does not imply that anyone else can do
>> that. Of course it does mean that you security depends on the security
>> of the vendor, which is an unknown quantity. This is partly why the
>> few remotely updatable devices that I do own are fire-walled off from
>> the rest of my internal network.
>>
>> Few networked devices accept incoming connections, for the simple
>> reason that they're unlikely to get past a gateway router. Most work
>> by making outgoing connections to the vendor's server. The better
>> implementations require an authenticated server certificate, which
>> makes impersonation of the vendor pretty much impossible. Without a
>> certificate the intending intruder may engage in something like a DNS
>> cache poisoning attack, but they have become more difficult over the
>> years.
>>
>> If one is to worry about back-doors, the main vulnerability is the
>> router itself, and this has indeed been a problem in the past,
>> especially where the ISP has the ability to update firmware or change
>> settings, because now one is dependent on the security of the ISP,
>> which is not always been up to the task.
>>
>> Commercially supplied routers have a bad record of vulnerabilities. I
>> use a small single board computer as a gateway instead.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
> i have nothing to hide so i don't do anything

Not even information that could be used in identity theft?

Sylvia.

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:

> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.

Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?

yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:

> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
>
> /!\ The following should be read with a mix of panic and a smile; you
> decide, what to apply to which parts.
>
>
> > ISTM that a secure payload would need to be encrypted on a stand-alone
> > machine, air-gapped and never to be connected online.
>
> There are many ways even air-gapped systems can or do leak data, that
> may leak the keys or partial information about them.
>
> IMO every system that exists on the same side of the singularities as we
> do *is* connected with the rest. It just may be harder to get the data
> you want.
>
> We had leaking CRTs which could be read over a distance, AM leaks using
> rhythms of loops while computing, blinking drive LEDs, RPM modulated
> fans, ultrasonic connections between laptops in exams, and additionally
> we are in the
>
> __ __ ___ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ _
> | \/ |_ _| \| |_ _\ \/ / |_ _|_ _ __(_)__| |___| |
> | |\/| || || .` || | > < | || ' \(_-< / _` / -_)_|
> |_| |_|___|_|\_|___/_/\_\ |___|_||_/__/_\__,_\___(_)
>
>
> era and I definitely will not bet that ARM and RISCV chips or even FPGAs
> don't come "pre-infected" in a comparable way. So who knows which
> Gremlins in other chips are able to play e.g. modem over power-line and
> whatnot.
>
> So better assume that every system that is not made exclusively from
> logic gates[0] you've baked yourself in your kitchen already comes
> infected with spy hard- and software. And thinking about this shouldn't
> stop without a look at the power supply[1]. Some leaks still may exist
> no matter what you use to build the gates, but at least the foreign
> gremlins would stay outside.
>
>
> TL;DR:
> __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
> \ \ / /__( )_ _ ___ __| |___ ___ _ __ ___ __| | | | |
> \ \/\/ / -_)/| '_/ -_) / _` / _ \/ _ \ ' \/ -_) _` |_|_|_|
> \_/\_/\___| |_| \___| \__,_\___/\___/_|_|_\___\__,_(_|_|_)
>

Yes, exactly so; I agree that we're doomed (just like always...) ≈:o(

I suppose I'll just have to invest in a sound-proofed anechoic chamber
inside a Faraday shield and power my stand-alone 'puter with batteries
using only left-handed electrons.

On the other hand I may just shrug my shoulders and accept that
privacy is dead, long dead, and it ain't coming back.

As I said at the outset: anything viewable in clear on a networked
device is vulnerable to observation and the quality of message
encryption is moot, not to say futile.

> ____________
>
>
> [0]: Jeri Makes Integrated Circuits
> <https://hackaday.com/2010/03/10/jeri-makes-integrated-circuits/#more-2229
> 0>
>
> Transistor Fabrication: So Simple A Child Can Do It
> <https://hackaday.com/2010/05/13/transistor-fabrication-so-simple-a-c
> hild-can-do-it/>
>
> LLTP - Light Logic Transistorless Processor
> <https://hackaday.io/project/172413-lltp-light-logic-transistorless-p
> rocessor>
>
> Mechanical Logic Gates With Amplification
> <https://hackaday.com/2024/09/20/mechanical-logic-gates-with-amplific
> ation/>
>
> [1]: Charging An Electric Supercar With Lemons, Kids, And The Sun
> <https://hackaday.com/2018/06/29/charging-an-electric-supercar-with-lemons
> -kids-and-the-sun/>

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, VC, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the expected socialist paradise.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 06:18 this Monday (GMT):
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>
>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>
> Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?

A networked rock?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 19:58 this Friday (GMT):
> % wrote:
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 15:18 this Friday (GMT):
>>>> Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and
>>>>> the
>>>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>>>
>>>> meet me half way
>>>
>>>
>>> Where would that be?
>>>
>> the north arctic
>
> no , the north atlantic , sorry

On it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 06:18 this Monday (GMT):
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> >
> >> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> >
> > Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?
>
> A networked rock?

Gordon is a primary node on the Extranet but he and I have a direct P2P
telepathic link for a shorter ping.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, VC, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the expected socialist paradise.

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 06:18 this Monday (GMT):
>> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>> >
>> >> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>> >
>> > Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?
>>
>> A networked rock?
>
>Gordon is a primary node on the Extranet but he and I have a direct P2P
>telepathic link for a shorter ping.

So, you hated on me for liking trans women, but you're talking about a
rock as if it's alive. OK.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:
> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>> wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 06:18 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>>>
>>>> Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?
>>>
>>> A networked rock?
>>
>> Gordon is a primary node on the Extranet but he and I have a direct P2P
>> telepathic link for a shorter ping.
>
>
> So, you hated on me for liking trans women, but you're talking about a
> rock as if it's alive. OK.
>
did he make friends with you first

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> >candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> >wrote:
> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 06:18 this Monday (GMT):
> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:35 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
> >> >
> >> > Is Gordon a networked device? How did it communicate that message to you?
> >>
> >> A networked rock?
> >
> >Gordon is a primary node on the Extranet but he and I have a direct P2P
> >telepathic link for a shorter ping.
>
> So, you hated on me for liking trans women, but you're talking about a
> rock as if it's alive. OK.

I don't know you well enough to hate you but I will say this:
Gordon talks more sense than you do. [fu2: adn]

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, VC, PTB, FIBS

My pet rock Gordon eagerly awaits the expected socialist paradise.

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Oct-24 11:35 am, % wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 11-Oct-24 10:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.
>>>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and
>>>> the
>>>> quality of message encryption is moot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An initial question is what exactly is meant by "backdoor". Any
>>> networked device that is capable of remote update by the vendor can
>>> presumably be updated by the vendor to do anything that any device on
>>> your network can do. But this does not imply that anyone else can do
>>> that. Of course it does mean that you security depends on the
>>> security of the vendor, which is an unknown quantity. This is partly
>>> why the few remotely updatable devices that I do own are fire-walled
>>> off from the rest of my internal network.
>>>
>>> Few networked devices accept incoming connections, for the simple
>>> reason that they're unlikely to get past a gateway router. Most work
>>> by making outgoing connections to the vendor's server. The better
>>> implementations require an authenticated server certificate, which
>>> makes impersonation of the vendor pretty much impossible. Without a
>>> certificate the intending intruder may engage in something like a DNS
>>> cache poisoning attack, but they have become more difficult over the
>>> years.
>>>
>>> If one is to worry about back-doors, the main vulnerability is the
>>> router itself, and this has indeed been a problem in the past,
>>> especially where the ISP has the ability to update firmware or change
>>> settings, because now one is dependent on the security of the ISP,
>>> which is not always been up to the task.
>>>
>>> Commercially supplied routers have a bad record of vulnerabilities. I
>>> use a small single board computer as a gateway instead.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>> i have nothing to hide so i don't do anything
>
> Not even information that could be used in identity theft?
>
> Sylvia.

nothing