** 05-Apr-2019 Huawei backdoor, typos, copyright
> The other thing is that few people understand the security issues
> with Huawei's chips. The Chinese simply say, "Provide the
> evidence." But as I've shown, a person with my skills could easily
> implement a "backdoor" that uses encryption techniques that are
> impossible to detect.
zzazz wrote:
> I completely missed where you showed that, and am infinitely
> skeptical. Please show it again. Be sure to pay particular
> attention to the part where you show that the silicon footprint of
> the back door is invisible to reverse engineers looking at the
> silicon through a microscope.
The "backdoor" isn't a physical door with a tiny little doorknob.
The chip hardware is not modified. The backdoor is all software.
I don't know why you're skeptical. It's been widely publicized
that the Feds can't crack an iPhone password. Obviously Huawei
can do the same with its 5G routers.
The following is what I wrote to you the last time you
asked the same question:
First, you obviously don't know the simplest thing about cryptography.
I could easily write C++ code that would react to a secret 1024 bit
key, and even if you had the commented source code in front of you,
you wouldn't be able to derive the secret key.
One obvious, simple implementation would be to use public/private key
encryption. The public key could be embedded in the code, and even
someone in possession of the source code could not derive the private
key, which would be the secret key in this case. That's just one way
of doing it. There are many others.
Second, I could write C++ code that would baffle the experts. Someone
might be able to reverse engineer the code, and might even be
suspicious that there's a hidden algorithm in there, but it would
never be more than a suspicion and they'd never be able to prove it.
This is all software, with no hardware changes
-----------------------------
josa0512 wrote:
> John What's the best way for us to send our grammar suggestions to
> you?
> I read your introductory paragraph Chapter 1 and I have two
> suggestions for you.
> Chapter 1:
> 3rd paragraph, line 2: - Remove the comma between the words
> "paranoid" and "schizophrenic".
> 3rd paragraph, last word of line 3: Add the ending "ly" to
> "repeated" so the sentence reads "being repeatedly beaten
> economically".
Thanks for the correction.
-----------------------------
Tom Mazanec wrote:
> Skimmed. Only quibble I see so far is the title of 5.1:
> 5.1. China's biggest resource: billions of expendable people
> "billions" implies plural billion, ie 2 billion. Maybe change it
> to "A billion expendable people", since I doubt even China would
> want to lose more than that? -Your friendly grammar nazi
Any number greater than one permits a plural noun, as in
"one and one-half slices of bread."
-----------------------------
John wrote:
> Yes, I self-published the Iran book using Amazon's KDP service.
> The way it works is that I submit a DOC file for the book, supply
> an ISBN number, and fill out all the forms. Then when somebody
> wants to buy the book, Amazon simply prints one out and sends
> it.
Guest wrote:
> Do you keep the copyright? How much does Amazon charge?
Yes, you keep the copyright. But if you want full publishing
rights, then you have to buy your own ISBN from Bowker.
There's no charge to submit a book to Amazon. They take a cut
of each sale.
