← Back to context Comment by mihaaly 9 hours ago But is it true or not? Whoever wrote it. (for objective truth the subjects are unimportant) 3 comments mihaaly Reply buckle8017 5 hours ago It might have been true in 2002 but it hasn't been true since at least about 2010.You've almost certainly never had a system that supported any hardware accelerated crypto that also required a kernel module.It's much easier to expose as cpu extensions. skywhopper 8 hours ago When you can’t know the objective truth or when there isn’t one (as is the case in making decisions about security tradeoffs in software design), knowing the source of the argument is vital to interpreting its validity. bawolff 5 hours ago I disagree 100%. Software security tradeoffs are definitely the sort of thing where you can evaluate arguments on their merits.
buckle8017 5 hours ago It might have been true in 2002 but it hasn't been true since at least about 2010.You've almost certainly never had a system that supported any hardware accelerated crypto that also required a kernel module.It's much easier to expose as cpu extensions.
skywhopper 8 hours ago When you can’t know the objective truth or when there isn’t one (as is the case in making decisions about security tradeoffs in software design), knowing the source of the argument is vital to interpreting its validity. bawolff 5 hours ago I disagree 100%. Software security tradeoffs are definitely the sort of thing where you can evaluate arguments on their merits.
bawolff 5 hours ago I disagree 100%. Software security tradeoffs are definitely the sort of thing where you can evaluate arguments on their merits.
It might have been true in 2002 but it hasn't been true since at least about 2010.
You've almost certainly never had a system that supported any hardware accelerated crypto that also required a kernel module.
It's much easier to expose as cpu extensions.
When you can’t know the objective truth or when there isn’t one (as is the case in making decisions about security tradeoffs in software design), knowing the source of the argument is vital to interpreting its validity.
I disagree 100%. Software security tradeoffs are definitely the sort of thing where you can evaluate arguments on their merits.