Security & Privacy are impossible to reach.

>>59475901
>Heartbleed
Because it's C
C is a disservice to intelligent programmers. It has almost 0 features that a modern and intelligent programmer uses to be productive. Since C is such a timesink, it's popularity is falling more than any other languages in the market.
C is dying and it should die ASAP. C programmers are actually retards in general. C is a small language to grasp, exactly the kind of shit that makes things retard friendly.
C has no advanced features like C++ does.

But as a newfag you are kinda in the right direction. C is for newbies. Think of it this way:
During ancient times, counting to 10 was a big deal and a person who could count to 10 was considered to be "wise".

Fast forward a few century counting to 10 is so trivial we teach this to toddlers. Now toddlers appreciate the vast "knowledge" of counting to 10 while matured brains are busy with modern technologies.

C is from stone age and the people who still preach it is like overgrown toddlers that can't learn advanced things.
C doesn't have delegates
C doesn't have resizable arrays
C doesn't have strings
C doesn't have string concatenation
C doesn't have namespaces
C doesn't have exception handling
C doesn't have closures in the standard
C doesn't have unit tests
C doesn't have Function overloading
C doesn't have memory safety of any kind
C doesn't prevent memory exploits and has no bounds and runtime checks
C doesn't have dynamic method loading/creatin
C doesn't even have generics and templates
C doesn't have meta programming
C doesn't have mixins
C doesn't have higher order functions
C doesn't have contract programming
C doesn't have inner classes
C doesn't have function literals
C doesn't have array slicing
C has a very limited support for implicit parallelism
C doesn't even have string switches

C is a cancer that plagues the modern industry. If you want guaranteed memory exploits and security vulnerabilities in your program with timesink development period then use Assembly, not C.

redpill

>>59476202
I prefer the """"""""""""""""alternative"""""""""""""""" pill

>>59475925
The code monkey has spoken.

>>59475901
If you're not a kiddy-fiddler or a muslim terrorist, you don't need privacy. Privacy is just an excuse frequently used by criminals.

>>59476380
The CIA has spoken

>>59476390
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>59475901
I use FreeBSD on libreboot thinkpadx60s and I also use the same laptop as a router. I normally connect only through tor so I'm not worried about my ISP.

>>59476644
the core 2 duo doesn't have the ME.

File: 1473902899605-g.jpg (191KB, 736x599px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 736x599px

>>59476390
>le "nothing to hide" bullshit meme
>implying what's legal and accepted now could not become a problem for you later
Get out of this board and never come back.

>RSA backdoored
What the fuck are you on champ?

>>59476390
This.

Fuck off mudshits

>>59476979
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-rsa-idUSBREA2U0TY20140331

cheers

>Doesn't have a PC in a faraday cage
>Doesn't have a completely offline PC
Why?

Open Source hardware won't solve the problem as well.
You have Open Source CPU designs, the problem is that to manufacture it you need a CPU fab and many people working there.
There may be spies that secretly implant backdoors during production, on a hardware level.
Read Adam Waksman PhD thesis, guy worked for NSA and facebook.

>>59475901
>RSA algorithm is backdoored by NSA
>Math is broken

>>59477178
so computer is fucked, good

>>59477194
it's not about math you retard its about backdoor and fake randomness

>>59477194
Not OP, but RSA security is based only by the fact that nobody found an algorithm to factorize large integers in a polynomial (fast) time.
That's it, RSA is not mathematically proven to be secure.
One time pad is proven mathematically by Claude Shannon, the proof is not even hard, but OTP requires the same length of a key and message and it's not always practical.

If you use OTP then you can securely encrypt data assuming that your key is long and as random as possible (smashing keyboard tier randomness).
The problem is for that key to not leak out of your machine.
Also, you guys are forgetting about another cool security technique that's called steganography.

>>59475901
> CIA
CIA won't give their exploits to NSA or FBI. If you care about being backdoored by NSA, you're in some serious shit and you shouldn't rely on something you don't fully understand to protect you.
Airgap your devices, forge a second identity. If you don't know how, ask your local KGB patron.

>>59475901
> RSA algorithm is backdoored by NSA
Only a random bit generator was backdoored, if they cannot do integer factorization in polynomial time, then RSA is still safe to use.

>>59477261
> If you care about being backdoored by NSA, you're in some serious shit

????

>>59477761
Meant CIA, obviously.

>>59475901
>implying as a eurofag i'm concerned the ABC will fuck with my machines and i don't just want to keep them save from local threads who don't know shit

>>59476390
This, kill all those who use linux and other privacy shit. You have no right to privacy because it enables criminals.

>>59477108
Based NSA keeping whites safe from pedos and terrorists.

>>59475901
Implying I give a fuck. The CIA has no jurisdiction in Portugal.

>>59478299
but they can spy you
they can spy anybody, everybody
anywhere

File: 1484557555320.gif (2MB, 696x478px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 696x478px

We have basically no privacy no matter what we do, and the internet is becoming more and more censored.

Feelsbadman.

>>59479501
very nice pepe mate, saving it

>>59476644
> I normally connect only through tor so I'm not worried about my ISP.
>I don't know how tor and the internet work.

>>59479721
KEK

>>59475901
Another ass blasted CIA thread.

Sorry Bronies, we're all switching to OpenBSD.

What is amusing to me, is that I remember for Y E A R S there were ass blasted shills complaining about how people were taping over their webcams.

Remember those threads anons? "Oy vey goyim no need to tape over those cameras..."

>>59476979
Ya this is true. RSA is Jewish so they couldn't resist a big sack with a dollar sign on it.

>>59475925
C -> Linux -> Gentoo. Fuck.

>>59475901
>We need more data from you /g/
>Please install Windeus 10, enable Cortangel and all the telemetry to enhance your user-experience.

CIA NIGGER

>>59477225
And people still haven't found a way to do that yet. If they do, we're fucked, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

OTP is almost always impractical. Not only do you need a key the length of the data but it has to be perfectly random and can't be reused.

>>59477258
See my above comment on OTP.

>stego
>security through obscurity

For 99 percent of the population, evading NSA surveillance is impossible or incredibly impractical.
For 99 percent of the population, evading corporate analytics, tracked ads, and the like is entirely possible and actually quite easy.
Government surveillance should be dealt with on a governmental level. Elect officials who want to minimize surveillance and the damage of the Patriot Act. A bunch of NEETs in basements won't always be able to outsmart a bunch of suits in the Pentagon. It's a losing battle, at least with consumer tech. All the /fucko/ in the world will only get you so far.

>>59482146
Not to mention OTPs still have the weakness that say AES has concerning key distribution. Asymmetric encryption solved this problem.

File: mk_ultra_girl_c1961a.jpg (25KB, 400x289px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x289px

>That's it guys no point in fighting for privacy we are fucked.
You sound as a fuidly millenial loser.

>We cannot trust propritary software as we don't know if there is backdoor
Propietary?
>Every fucking OS are backdoored by CIA acording to Vault7.
Obviously you haven't read a single shit about it.
>BIOS, Intel jews, Trusted Computing
Freebios or removing the ntework parts of intel bios is an option, you dumbfuck.
> Mhumhmu I use open-source BIOS
Fuck off CIA Nigger.

Keep using systemd.

Keep using chrome by google.

Keep buying from amazon

you silly fucking goy

Alternatives are available, but you are a loser.

Heads is a viable alternative to Tails (that's sucking poettering ass now)
Are routers and HW trusted? Fuck no, but a clever home LAN can alert you on eventulòa bypasses.

You fucking jew shill.

>>59476390
proprietary nigger

>>59482345
>/pol/ after a leak
>muh privacy and security

>/pol/ 6 months after the leaks
>you are pedo if need hide anything

>>59476979
>>59477033
new shills here

>>59477108
>From 2004 to 2013 the default random number generator in the library contained an alleged kleptographic backdoor from the American National Security Agency (NSA), as part of its secret Bullrun program
So?

> Mhumhmu use FOSS
>Very little chance to find backdoor (Heartbleed ?)
You forget what SSL received a little fraction than a startup any shit app.

> Mhumhmu Crypt your data
>RSA algorithm is backdoored by NSA
Use ECC. Also "backdoored a algorithm"???

> Mhumhmu use another one
>Every fucking OS are backdoored by CIA acording to Vault7. No point in crypting
If you don't update.

> Mhumhmu My OS in not backdoored as I use XXXX (FreeBSD fools)
>Ok maybe what about your BIOS ? (Some BIOS attack, can rewrite themselve in USB, graphic card, motherboard small writable place and rewrite themselves into BIOS at all boot even if they are deleted, will find sauce if you ask for)
Even if they have a physical backdoor, probably is too hard to use in everyone.

> Mhumhmu I use open-source BIOS
>Ok what about your hardware. How are you sure there is no backdoor in your graphic card, CPU, motherboard ? These are un-auditable anyway.
I'm can't. But you can hardening your OS do prevent this.

> Mhumhmu....
>Can you trust your ISP ? Can you trust your router, your switch ? No you don't have any idea as you didn't audited the source code.
We have open source firmware to routers.

>>59477221
Lmao do you understand what you are saying? You definitely don't. Randomness is implementation specific, sure any implementation of encryption can be backdoored, the algorithm is air tight as of now, it would be ground breaking.

>>59482146
Steganography could be useful to gain some more privacy and you can write your own procedure for random numbers so no problems here.
As long as you don't reuse an existing RNG, then there's smaller risk of it being known by NSA etc.

>>59482318
Quantum Key Distribution is another solution for OTP key distribution.