Score + - 0 Report post.
Posted on 2013-01-06 01:34:38 by deathwish
Remove | Add note | Keep | Edit | Note history | Tag History | Previous | Next
1 comment (0 hidden)
Anonymous
Posted on 2013-01-06 03:21:49 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
Okay, I can see how you could patent the anti-tamper technology, but using proprietary encryption (in this case, Omni-Crypt) is insecure and a recipe for disaster.
Not to mention, it's very much possible that there's a backdoor in the closed standard. You guys best prepare for a robot rebellion, because those robot brains are NOT safe from crackers.
Posted on 2013-01-06 01:34:38 by deathwish
Remove | Add note | Keep | Edit | Note history | Tag History | Previous | Next
1 comment (0 hidden)
Anonymous
Posted on 2013-01-06 03:21:49 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
Okay, I can see how you could patent the anti-tamper technology, but using proprietary encryption (in this case, Omni-Crypt) is insecure and a recipe for disaster.
Not to mention, it's very much possible that there's a backdoor in the closed standard. You guys best prepare for a robot rebellion, because those robot brains are NOT safe from crackers.
1