Hacker News Reader

Comment by panpanna | Hacker News Reader

I am sorry, but how does an open ISA guarantee lack of backdoors?

Technically, the x64 ISA is also open. It is patented to death, but its open. There is a free document describing every detail of it on Intel's website (AMD has one too).

View on HN

Can't speak for OP, but maybe they mean things like Intel Management Engine, or cryptographicly locked bootloaders (not a backdoor, obviously, but a nuisance) with keys we can't control. So the backdoor is "feature", not a conspiracy.

And we are starting to see riscv chips with similar functions. That ISA is open doesn't mean the firmware must be open. And we have already riscv devices with additional homegrown hardware security "features".

Of course, you could avoid manufacturers that put this type of security crap in their chips. But with that logic you can already avoid Intel ME by using CPUs from Via...

(The point I'm trying to make is that an open ISA doesn't really solve all our problems. I feel Berkeley folks are overpromising here)

If the problem is the lack of trustful manufacturers, then RISC-V simplify the work of any fab that want to become this trustful manufacturer.

When we talk about security on Intel CPU, it's tragic. When we talk about security about RISC-V, it's a complex problem. That's a massive improvement. But yes, the work is far from over.

I'm not a fan at all of cryptocurrencies, but there are some interesting cryptographic ideas behind Polkadot (with Jeff Burdges) and Golem Project (with Joanna Rutkowska) to use those networks security to bring trust back to the laptop/phone level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com