By recent events I'm assuming you are referring to the NSA. Note: What the NSA has been doing is well known and has been outlined in detail in the press all the way back to 2008. The country just hasn't cared enough to pay attention until the current exciting manhunt underway.

This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I imagine the first a lot of other people are hearing of it. Two things:

1. Just because it's old news, doesn't mean it isn't news for a lot of people.

2. My point still stands: some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true (do a search for "conspiracy theories that were proven true"), so wholesale calling conspiracy theorists nut jobs, or saying they are "tinfoil hat" wearers is unbelievably shortsighted.

I guess the larger point is: the current NSA issue should in no way be considered a conspiracy since it has been well known, and not hidden (if you have been paying attention) from the outset. Also jumping to a conspiracy theory re: what tptacek is saying is shortsighted, unless you have actual relevant evidence to support said conspiracy.

It's not of interest whether or not people should be considered ignorant if the recent NSA information was news to them. willurd was correctly pointing out that the phrase "tinfoil hat" used by tptacek is an empty insult, which avoids the need to say something more intelligent in its place. I agree with him that it's inappropriate in this forum.

Two months ago the mainstream would have called anyone talking about the NSA a nutjob, and anybody not looking closely probably thinks Snowden is a vile traitor. No matter how "known" the issue is, every new piece of evidence helps convince a few more people to care.

No, this isn't true; rather, it's something people on HN and Reddit say to make themselves feel smarter. In cryptography, it has been article of faith for decades that the NSA is actively working to subvert the security of public cryptography.

The problem with the rdrand conspiracy theory isn't that it's unreasonable to believe the NSA is trying to backdoor something; it's that it's a stupid backdoor, and that the logic that delivers you to the conclusion that it's a backdoor also concludes that everything else must be a backdoor.

I was only addressing res0nat0r's comment that the NSA's broad surveillance was well known, not the possibility that Intel's HWRNG is compromised. I agree that if you can't trust your CPU, all bets are off, but there is probably a different way of expressing the futility and improbability of such a situation that doesn't use the word tinfoil.

One would think that burden of evidence would be on the side of the accusers of backdooring. So far all I have seen is inaccurate speculation.

That is how the legal system works, so do you seriously plan to arrest the NSA?

But the topic here is about maintaining a secure system. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every element is either secure or allowed to be owned by your antagonist. Technically no one should have ever trusted something that can not be observed (and it sounds like the people responsible didn't.)

If you chose to trust intel for no good reason, then you must now untrust them given that there is a reason. As a company they would be idiots to introduce such a thing. But if every US company can clearly be threatened with even worse outcomes into going against its own market interests then such an argument does not apply.

As a side note, I do think there was already plenty of evidence that the US was actively forcing companies to do the NSA's bidding. The encryption export laws were largely designed to keep everyone who makes encryption products perpetually afraid of losing all their right to export anything mostly by "governmental discretion" on handling the companies inevitable 'incidents' of support talking to the wrong person about how RSA worked.

It is. That doesn't mean we have to marginalize people who have theories, even if they don't have any evidence to back them up. My approach is to entertain all possibilities until they are proven to me to be false. In that way I attempt to avoid tunnel vision.

Care to buy some of my tiger repellent? It's been 100% effective so far!

How many tigers have you repelled? Which species? I'm particularly worried about bengal tigers in my apartment complex. Can it handle those?

I don't have "any evidence to back it up" but it "has not proven to be false." So because you're "avoiding tunnel vision" you should purchase some. Luckily, I'm willing to let it go for $999 a can.

Don't marginalize me, bro.

I was actually going to suggest $1099. Can I pay that instead?

That "if you have evidence" cuts both ways. You can't deny that Recent shenangians have pulled the paranoid delusionals out of the woodwork...

Has it? Examples? (I'm not saying it hasn't; I don't know)

I don't deny that some people do actually have paranoid delusions. But there's a big difference between a paranoid delusion and a (conspiracy) theory. The point I'm trying to make is that in light of recent conspiracies, we have to cut the conspiracy theorists some slack.

I disagree. They are bound to the same burden of proof everyone else is.

I agree, as I stated above in another comment. When asked whether the burden of proof is on them, I replied: "It is. That doesn't mean we have to marginalize people who have theories, even if they don't have any evidence to back them up. My approach is to entertain all possibilities until they are proven to me to be false. In that way I attempt to avoid tunnel vision."