I don’t think this is matter of mathematics, it is difficult to define what “software only running on desired machine” is. Like, do you permit functionally equal software with different code? With painstaking effort, functionality should be approximated fairly close (although idk what that means in mathematical context) On the other hand, requiring exact code is likely not what they want.

Cryptographic guarantee requires mathematical specification, which seems ill-fit in this scenario.

Huh, interesting that pop could be realized this time.

I was like, why aren’t you publishing it to a conference/journal if it is good? Then realized that you are doing exactly that. Kudos for the work, looking forward to the progress!

I don’t think Signal trusts the AWS server either, that’s the point of E2EE encryption.

I am realizing I were only good at tests… So sad that I am one of the dumbest and just managed to fool some people with grades. But that does not help with real life.

It lists no alternative to actual(-budget) :( I don’t have time to create my own alternative, maybe I should go back to spreadsheets?

Please please please do not bork this one, I don’t want to abandon another game I love. Hopefully it’s not like KSP 2 or Cities Skylines 2

Exactly, C++ is what came to my mind when I saw this. Some people don’t put references??

Security by obscurity does not work, because people are only so creative up to a point. Hence, there are only handful of configurations for the attacker to try out.

This contrasts to e.g. 128-bit secure encryption, which involves trying 2^128 times to break it - which is a number with whopping 38 zeros. It takes 10^22 years to break it with trying at 1GHz rate. It is simply incomparable, and adding a few bits of security by obscure combination is simply not worth it.

Yet, so many people and organizations seem to prefer obscurity to actual security.

Oh, do you happen to be a physicist or an analyst?

Same. Maybe I… gasp… like trains?

I wonder if we can really trust the TEEs. Isn’t it their hardware where they are quite free to do what they want? Also it looks very vulnerable to the side-channel attacks.

deleted by creator

I feel like they are confounding LLMs AND general AI/ML. The latter is useful in many areas, while the former is mostly hype imo.

That’s such a way to dismiss the theory and academia

You know that is a lie, a lip service for the gullible mass. Samsung just does not care about security and privacy because it does not boost their profits.

deleted by creator

Maybe I should admit defeat and go back to reddit… Perhaps everyone is supposed to be slaves to the shareholders

Do you mean python has something to do with functional programming, or did I misread? Because I would say e.g. Typescript is (slightly) closer to FP than Python.

This made me realize that I am a nerd. Sad.