Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Dec 2010 22:38 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 455120
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by galvanash
by flanque on Thu 30th Dec 2010 13:36
in reply to "RE: Comment by galvanash"
RE[3]: Comment by galvanash
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Thu 30th Dec 2010 14:23
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by galvanash"
RE[2]: Comment by galvanash
by somebody on Thu 30th Dec 2010 23:16
in reply to "RE: Comment by galvanash"
it's hard to believe that they would fail that badly.
i was watching in disbelief especially about that crypto part with constant "random" value.
i was watching in disbelief especially about that crypto part with constant "random" value.
i kinda feel that one was forgotten dev error. most coders do constant for random when developing. takes one variable out and makes it easier to create working thing.
then again correct approach to this would be something like this
#if DEBUG
return(4);
#else
return(Random);
#endif




Member since:
2009-12-14
it's hard to believe that they would fail that badly.
i was watching in disbelief especially about that crypto part with constant "random" value.
i think that might put a big question mark over quality of many sony security technologies.
still i don't think it would all be possible without being to run linux on the device in the first place. it might take a few more months/years if it weren't for that - the outside layer of encryption seems very solid.
it's the inside design that really sucks.