>>26
Why bother reading the source when you can use Microsoft Windows?
Exploiting the OS is not specific to Windows. For example, SELinux was written by the NSA and is installed on many GNU\Linux distribution installations. Given the talent that the NSA has, it is not inconceivable that they can craft a flaw into the code that is met in only edge (or designed) cases that most hackers wouldn't immediately see.
Web-of-trust, fucktard.
This does nothing to prevent adversaries who can control the method of communication used to share keys.
Oh wait, you don't have any friends.
I'll have you know that I have many friends.
Use the source, Luke.
There could be many flaws in the mathematics of RSA that we don't know about (yet), or are being suppressed for ''security'' reasons. And even if there wasn't, that would do nothing to stop the brute force attacks using classified computer systems, large criminal botnets, or plain old stealing of the key and modifying files without the knowledge of the owner.
Back to /b/, faggot.
Typical childish behavior.
>>27
Tinfoil hat detected. An attacker needs physical access to a machine in order to change the CPU's microcode.
Or they can manufacture the processors, be it the company for the government, or the factory modifying it for other means without the designer's knowledge.
Why go through the pain of such an elaborate attack when he can just install a relatively cheap radio keylogger onto the keyboard.
Because there is no method of mass exploitation in that. With the OS or CPU lines compromised, anyone could be targeted on a whim without even being close. Just send a few odd bytes in the .tar during a write operation and there you go.