heads on plates
>That's why the only proper way is to avoid these digital things, because you can not TRUST them.
Unless you design the hardware and software yourself.
>Yeah, good luck making your own chips.
You need to research more. It is not difficult to build secure systems with insecure parts. You might want to look into that.
>(and let's even go that route, so you believe that you can write a safe+secure TCP/IP stack for example, you can implement proper security and a proper random number generator, and your own compiler from scratch and and and without using any other computer, which can and probably is compromised)
Since you have no idea who you're talking to, I'll forgive you for not believe that I can. I can. You could too if you worked at it enough. Once again, not that difficult.
>That's once again assuming that you are more intelligent than trillion dollar agencies, but let's assume and let's assume you do a perfect job at it.
Don't need to do a perfect job at it – there are always bugs. However, with a few very powerful tricks, it isn't that difficult. And trillion dollar agencies are more wasteful and stupid than most can imagine. And yes, I'm better at it that they are. And there are a lot of me.
>Okay, so you got your own gadget.
>But what about everyone else?
Step 2: Manufacturing.
>Why should they trust your gadget?
They should not. TNO.
>Others can assume that you are controlled and selling them backdoored hardware.
Yes.
>Or are they supposed to build their own as well?
They can choose to have trusted suppliers or build their own devices.
One thing I'll add is that it is also quite possible to build a lot of self-checking into systems such that their individual pieces can be validated with multiple third-part devices such that passing all of the differently implemented tests is required to trust the part. In any case, the only way to KNOW if a device is secure is if you implemented it yourself.
Your original comment was that the only way to avoid the problems with digital devices is to avoid them. False.
I never said it would be convenient. I simply said your blanket statement was an overstatement. It is possible, just inconvenient.
And yes, I'm doing something about it.
>When the hardware is compromised any software on it has to be seen as automatically compromised as well.
I do not have the time or crayons to explain this to you.
I'm not going to debate this here.
In the future when you see it happen, I'll enjoy your eating your absolute opinions.
Your ability to misstate what I've said is truly impressive.
>So you didn't say that people should create hardware themselves including chips and software and that "this would happen"?
No, I did not.