As with everything, trust is required eventually. It’s more about reducing the amount of trust required than removing it entirely. It’s the same with HTTPS - website certificates only work if you trust the root certificate authorities, for example. Root manufacturer keys may only be certified if they have passed some level of trust with the root authority/authorities. Proving that trust is well-founded is more a physical issue than an algorithmic one. As it is with root CAs it may involve physical cybersecurity audits, etc.
Comment on Anon predicts the future
Valmond@lemmy.world 4 days agoThis is blatantly not true, it would be extremely simple to circumvent. How do you “tie” the cert to a specific hardware without trusting manufacturers? You just can’t, it’s like putting a padlock on a pizzabox.
Rossphorus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Valmond@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yep, totally fair. It’s kind of crazy actually how we all trust that stuff, and when there’s a breach people just want to expire certificates more often etc.
I bet there is a better way but as long as no one is paying, we’re stuck with this mess. I have programmed stuff with x509 in the medical sector, what a trusty spaghetti mess that was, but when you finally got your cert, you could basically do whatever.
Sorry for the rant 😅 I just want to show people that even if the mathematics behind RSA is fantastic and secure, the human side is always there to break that 🤷🏼♀️.
Taleya@aussie.zone 4 days ago
I literally explained earlier how this exact technology is used in digital cinema dude c’mon.
Valmond@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That doesn’t mean it’s useful for forensics, IMO.