From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.comp.gnu.lightning.general Subject: Re: GNU Thunder Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:18:40 +0200 Message-ID: <87iokzefgv.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410097718 32022 80.91.229.3 (7 Sep 2014 13:48:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 13:48:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lightning , Ian Grant , schellr@ieee.org, guile-devel To: William ML Leslie Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 07 15:48:31 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XQcbW-0002sB-Gk for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:34:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38239 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQcMj-0000qX-EV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:18:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQcMg-0000qE-Bc for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:18:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQcMf-0008J6-Ct for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:18:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]:43740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQcMd-0008Iq-BS; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:18:43 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id hz20so1403115lab.29 for ; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:18:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=MEXC9Ov1stipwR86txLfmlftHcqRNaeHagKbpbOXqTo=; b=IWnoJlEM6Ob2PBI4LVhlnVwAPWBEsf/Jqcrb3qOVNBs+C7x5Ue5FQLpu4zjvvk1gJ+ 9b8wkz1Zi8uY5FRw9LQCD+8hi7Qz/fYv1Mpo3+uUln7yAYTlhL+g6S+eNEnvMyT5APsu /l46Eco+IQaTFLf5v4wuqim0Otokje1I9Y/zVibtSWVjbbF0QkdEw8FhfnkYU7auZQnK le5t0tdC7BIbaWo4DjD7w7dboqNmTSFXICRdzpiowiS9iQa1Az2hMCxikMksSjTTby5V Gcxc2dQQumA63RVWUNx2GM0agtO8g25Q1GInLxdQ6v4Nhx1EWPZFceZBnDJ73wnKXUeZ MLBQ== X-Received: by 10.112.135.137 with SMTP id ps9mr22130152lbb.24.1410095922077; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from taylan.uni.cx (p200300514A1DE4F70213E8FFFEED36FB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:51:4a1d:e4f7:213:e8ff:feed:36fb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm2449112laa.8.2014.09.07.06.18.40 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:18:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (William ML Leslie's message of "Sun, 7 Sep 2014 11:39:44 +1000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17428 gmane.comp.gnu.lightning.general:580 Archived-At: William ML Leslie writes: > Remember: I'm not suggesting what the outcome of your project will be, > just that if the result is negative, we still know nothing. When > testing a system for subterfuge, we need to examine *all* of the > moving parts, even those that appear to be unused. If the system you're > building your assembler on is compromised, it can still give you a > negative answer. That's what was so scary about this particular type > of attack. If I understood Mr. Grant right, the thing is that while a number of GCC builds might have been infected a decade ago and spreading it everywhere since we all use GCC built with GCC, if we use a new language right now to verify GCC, a language which since it's new couldn't have its evaluator infected at any layer (C compiler, assembler, hardware) since it's unknown to everyone, then we can be sure. In other words, since this language with new semantics is being created right here and now, it's *very* implausible (much more so than GCC being infected) that our communications would be intercepted right away and this language's evaluator also immediately infected to make the GCC verification fail. Also, since we define a simple semantics for which a new evaluator could be implemented at any time in any language, it becomes ever more and more implausible that *all* tools everywhere have been previously "patched" to infect all the evaluators being implemented or automatically generated in all kinds of different environments. I might not have fully grokked the topic so I hope I'm not just babbling. Taylan