- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
I know people have mixed opinions on Braxman but I don’t see any huge leaps in logic here tbh… Thoughts?
I know people have mixed opinions on Braxman but I don’t see any huge leaps in logic here tbh… Thoughts?
3 letter agencies, governments in general and data hungry companies will continue searching for a way to bypass encryption. And just a reminder: direct access to the system (remote or physical) bypasses all kinds of encryption unless it’s protected separately. Backdoors and kernel level anti-cheats ftw
Physical access trumps all.
Eh, kind of. Remote Desktop with an admin account would be more useful than physical access to a locked computer. Because if Bitlocker is enabled, then all that matters is that you can sign into the computer. Use strong passwords, don’t open RDP to the WAN, lock your workstations when walking away, etc…
Even cloning the drive to crack later (historically, this was a popular choice if you had physical access) is pretty useless if you don’t have a user’s password.
Physical access like an NPU chip fixed onto your motherboard?
Sure, anything with direct bus access to unencrypted data… that’ll do it
I didn’t mean that. I meant if the hacker has access to the administrator (or just user in case with E2EE messengers) account, they can see and download anything, no matter how encrypted it is. The chips can do stuff as well but idk any proof of that tbh
Sure, side channel leakage if you can run locally.
Honestly, most machines have enough cores, that you could pin a process to a specific core giving it independent cache, and work around a lot of these side channel attacks. So you’re encrypted and send messenger would get an exclusive core. Kind of like how we do VM pinning nowadays
What?
Bone apple tea. Fixed
Sus
Not really? If disks are encrypted good luck getting anything out of it. A remote access to a running machine? It’s all laid there.
true