Hacker News Reader

Comment by willstrafach | Hacker News Reader

> A unreported zero day is a de facto backdoor.

This is not true. A backdoor indicates that Microsoft is aware of it (and/or colluded to put it in), but there is no evidence of that. I respect your disagreement with my thoughts on how they should handle 0-days, but re-defining "backdoor" does not seem helpful.

View on HN

We can debate the meaning of words, but the goal of a backdoor from the perspective of the government is to gain access to a system. The effect of a backdoor is accomplished through a literal backdoor or a figurative backdoor by hoarding exploits, which both are a detriment of security.

By de facto, I was implying that they both accomplish the same things with almost the same list of pros and cons.

When I worked on jailbreaking tools for iOS devices, we routinely held onto multiple 0-days, waiting for a major iOS release to ensure compatibility.

While I know there may be reasons to disagree with that practice, I think it would be a major stretch to say that it meant iOS suddenly had a backdoor.

I agree that it is not a true backdoor, but I am simply pointing out that the goal is accomplished by hoarding 0-days or creating an actual backdoor.

The 0-day you were not reporting gave you escalated access to iOS devices. If Apple had given you a backdoor, you would have had the exact same access to the device.

Not saying its the same thing, which is why I used "de facto". The government just wants the access. Regardless the hole is intentional or unintentional, if a hole exists, then overall security is weakened

Reply on news.ycombinator.com