Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81949
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: For those arguing over languages... |
| Date | 2026-02-11 21:27 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10mis8n$v5p4$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <10mesjc$3gnr9$1@dont-email.me> <azKdnRQU0p54ZRb0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10mij0u$rimo$1@dont-email.me> <10mil9m$sd7n$5@dont-email.me> |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/02/2026 18:50, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/10/26 04:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> ...more fuel on the fire...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/09/compilers_undermine_encryption/
>>>>
>>>> GCC erases code whose delays obfuscates encryption delays because it
>>>> doesn't do anything...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting ! How 'optimization' sometimes ISN'T.
>>
>> Nope. As Richard Kettlewell has pointed out, what the encryption
>> code writers want is "constant time execution, regardless of inputs"
>> which is not a promised output from gcc, no matter the optimization
>> level chosen.
>>
> +1.
>
>> The compiler is "properly optimizing" given the meaning of
>> "optimization" it uses ("make code run as fast as possible" or "make
>> code as small as possible" -- with -Os). But the compiler was not
>> designed to create "constant time execution" code. The writers were
>> expecting a promise the compiler never promised.
>
> Sounds deeply political :-)
>
> Perhaps a C construct ...
>
> void randMicrodelay()
>
> could be constructed in Asssember for every platform...
For crypto work that likely would not be considered sufficient. Unless
the randomness for the "delay" came from a true random source it would
likely still leak side-channel data. It would make the attackers job
harder, but not fully close the leak.
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 09:09 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 13:11 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2026-02-10 14:08 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-10 15:16 +0100
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 16:19 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 18:20 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-10 11:22 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... John <john@panix.com> - 2026-02-17 16:23 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-19 19:26 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-22 09:28 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 08:24 -0800
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-10 18:16 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-10 22:34 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 18:50 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-11 19:28 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 21:27 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 09:48 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:48 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-11 16:24 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:45 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:42 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-11 23:24 +0100
Re: For those arguing over languages... Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:48 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-11 22:49 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 09:55 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 11:49 +0100
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:54 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-13 03:20 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 23:44 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:38 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 15:14 +0100
Re: For those arguing over languages... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-12 17:23 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-12 19:52 +0100
Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:11 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:20 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:10 +0000
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-13 19:57 -0500
Re: For those arguing over languages... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 20:56 -0500
csiph-web