I think it’s funny how little computer security people know about the Dapp ecosystem. It’s like they’re living in the hotel from The Shining and they have no idea what’s going down in Room 237.
Crypto/security people: we can’t *possibly* run a secure messaging app over the web because everything’s too insecure!
Dapp folks: let’s secure $100m using Javascript served by Cloudflare.
I still don’t understand why “let’s make system RNGs fast and insecure in case someone wants to run a Monte Carlo simulation” was ever considered to be anything other than the dumbest of all possible thoughts.
Apparently there is this huge population of language/OS users running Monte Carlo simulations and THEIR LIVES WILL BE UTTERLY RUINED if those simulations run slow.
I mean if I’m doing statistical simulations and the built-in system PRNG is slow, what’s the impact? I guess I’ll have to spend the 10 minutes copy/pasting the Mersenne Twister off Wikipedia. Seems pretty non-devastating.
I headed over to the Home view to see why tech Twitter has gotten so much lamer, and it’s all people speculating on when Bitcoin will hit 100K.
So henceforth this account will just speculate on the Bitcoin price.
I’ve been using Latest Tweets for a couple months now and switching back to Home is like going home to find your parents have turned your bedroom into a Taco Bell.
Many governments realize they’ve “lost” their chance to ban end-to-end encrypted messaging, but they also realize it doesn’t matter because unencrypted backups are much more useful.
So predictably the vanguard of the conversation has shifted away from E2EE (which is in many places a done deal) to device backups — which are still not widely E2EE encrypted.
I personally think that governments want to preserve unencrypted backups because it provides investigative capability. (Ie. they can subpoena Apple to get your texts.) And CSAM fear is just a tool that politicians are using to preserve this capability. But 🤷♂️.
Good thread about the recent Unicode attacks and some previous work that predates it. I agree that citations could be improved. But I want to push back a little. 1/
What was interesting to me about the recent Unicode/Trojan attacks (link below) isn’t that Unicode contains some exploitable fluffery. *Of course* it does. Unicode is terrible. 2/ trojansource.codes
What was surprising to me is how many compilers, source management tools and IDEs were vulnerable to the attacks. I expected this from pomo languages like, say, Golang or Swift. But even compilers for ancient languages like C/C++ were happy to eat Unicode and not complain. 3/