No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption”

Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption” by jancsika on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:35PM (#25523539)

> With his friends, P(zambungar_correct | bilparyoti_wrong) = P(zambungar_correct|bilparyoti_unknown), truly a situation worthy of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Granted. But OP seems to be at the other extreme which is equally problematic:

> Everyone reads a book, everyone but me likes it.

That strongly implies a boolean value judgment to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption” by Matticus_Rex on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @07:26PM (#25523914)

Nah, he's right. I often just end up with "I found parts of this persuasive and appealing, but I can't trust it because those parts are things I don't know much about, and in the parts I do know a lot about, there were serious issues." It's not that I think I know the rest is bad, too; it's that I know I don't know.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, Cellebrite Cannot “Break Signal Encryption” by renewiltord on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:53PM (#25523672)

I think that's just a shortcoming of terse communication. I would wager he's not zeroing out the coefficients considering the context. Maybe $10 at 5:1 if there were a way to ensure fairness on the bet.

[ Parent | on HN ]