That's what I mean by more touchy. I think you also can't do this without messing with system integrity protection. And, "1" is the lowest it can go which is not that low IMO. :)
That’s not every minor bump, though, and is worth the extra effort!
Also, my use case is 100% non critical from a security standpoint, so I can afford to be careless... your point definitely stands in sensitive environments
I would guess the concerns are less about corrupting results, and more about leakage power and switching speed. If you have a very leaky pulldown, switching to "1" is going to be slower.
Could use none. Low because if something changes elsewhere and we inadvertently start using RSA by accident, for example. But yeah if it’s not med/high it’s not necessary to fix. Maybe some mitigation where appropriate.
As I understand it, generally the big issue between 25519 and things like 448 is that you want the security level of your curve to meet the security level of the rest of your system, or else the extra work you're doing in the rest of your system is for nothing.
An SSD cell could actually be more susceptible, since it stores multiple bits by using multiple voltage thresholds - it takes much less perturbation to change the value. Cell size might make a big difference though, and I don't know how those compare.
Yes, every particle crossing the copper can create an anomalous signal that can switch a 0 to 1 or visa versa. If you have enough of those, the program(s) will eventually crash. On the processors themselves the L1/L2 caches are vulnerable, but beyond that, the ROM could also get corrupted making hard resets impossible even after a crash.
You too might be intressted in the link I posted above. Its about building safe hardware (and software), but I don't think its completly safe to anykind of random bit-flips.
Reread this amazing answer a few more times. Humbling. Also just concluded that I literally know only enough about hardware to be dangerous. Thanks once more.
That is an interesting idea, and on first blush I do think it'd be safer, but it does rely on figuring out exactly when the flaw was introduced, and will result in the "YoYoing" of features, which is confusing from a consumer standpoint.
reply