> Then how can we depend on the possibility of catching usage of undocumented
instructions in Intel's binary code base?
FSF proponents here would argue that through trust (in so called community)
you get the necessary certainty. But as I have said on other occasions -
trust is a belief. It creates more uncertainty as it is not based on direct
observation but on an idea. When you look a the tree outside your house -
there is nothing to trust or believe. The tree is there, you can see it,
touch it. You don't need a community of experts to provide certifications and
endorsements that there is a tree.
> It really boils down to the fact that with a proprietary
microcode/architecture, no higher level security scheme would hold water
against Intel or any entity they cooperate with. With such an architecture,
all the security measures, actual or perceived, goes out of the window. Sorry
to say that.
Exactly. That's why it is utterly meaningless to fight over which
distro/package is more free or move to 10 year old computers with 8Gb of RAM
which are still vulnerable and imperfect. As long as the technological
complexity is so high that one must trust experts and therefore be dependent,
there can never be real freedom and security. One is free and secure only
when one can see directly, not through authority, ideals and theories about
noble fights.
