From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Message Hash: 015b36d51087116cf5f80db7875d2bd583b206646fecd34f73d1e23a9f664ef7
Message ID: <199811241515.QAA32114@replay.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-11-24 17:28:01 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:28:01 +0800
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:28:01 +0800
To: <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: trusting code
Message-ID: <199811241515.QAA32114@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 01:12 PM 11/23/98 +0000, Frank O'Dwyer wrote:
>Vlad Stesin wrote:
>> I don't quite understand the logic behind this. The fact that the
>> program's source is available is itself a proof that there are no
>> backdoors. Anyone can read the source code and make sure it's OK.
>
>Anyone can, but does anyone?
Yes we do, but applied skeptics also consider the problem is also trusting
your compiler, and the rest of the OS (incl. memory manager, keyboard driver,
the email program your PGP utility may plug into, BIOS, etc.)
What version of Microsoft compilers will begin checking for
Mozilla code and compiling 'differently'?
See Ritchie's Turing award article on Trusting Trust...
Return to November 1998
Return to “Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>”
1998-11-24 (Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:28:01 +0800) - trusting code - Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>