• xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Moral from the original ACM paper: “The moral is obvious. You can’t trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from com- panies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possi- bility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware mi- crocode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well-installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.”

    • ulterno@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      And that’s why it makes sense to use RISK-V processors made by yourself, instead of processors by other companies.

      But make sure you have drawn the masks yourself and not used generating software by some other company, or there may be malicious changes done by them.


      I didn’t watch the video but thanks to you, I know it was on “Reflections on Trusting Trust”.

    • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah I will literally never watch any of these subscription/sponsor-begging “youtubers”. All of the videos of this kind should just be text. Keep your goofy over-the-top facial expressions and quirky delivery to yourself, please.

      The good news is that they’ve never had an original thought in their life and these videos do already exist as articles, which they’ve stolen and repackaged into video form.

      Here is the original content for this video: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F358198.358210

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dude, people are still asking wtf functors, monoidd, monads, and other such things are and there are papers written about those things all the time. Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody can stay awake while reading a scientific article? Are you just unwilling to accept that videos are easier to consume?

        Some people cannot understand what such scientific articles are saying because of how they were written and for which audience. Are you unaware that visual aids and animations exist? Do you think describing something is always better than showing it? There is a reason the expression “a picture can say more than a thousand words”.

        Yes, there are some videos that are just somebody reading an article to you with no added content, but I feel like this argument is brought jp regardless of video. Providing a DOI:// link just makes me shake my head.

        • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Me need silly face for learn!!! Me no read!!! 🤤

          Are you unaware that visual aids and animations exist? Do you think describing something is always better than showing it?

          Because these just can’t be present in an article, of course?