Hacker News Reader

Agreed. He seemed to make a decent argument that the quantity of records + types of data exposed didn’t add up (based on his knowledge of the system), but this statement (about primary encryption keys) undermined the credibility of the overall piece.

Indeed, the only time that "impossible" should be used when it comes to computer security is when stating that true security is impossible.

He said 'almost impossible'. Big difference.

He said almost impossible to imagine. It really was an extremely hyperbolic statement. I've never done security work but I've helped develop plans for when primary and secondary keys are stolen. It's something that should have been imagined, not "almost impossible to imagine".

I think it's actually pretty easy to imagine a scenario where private encryption keys were stolen.