No, you might want to re-read what I said about the rootkit thing. I'm saying you understand the compulsion to "call out" a bold claim. The joke was supposed to be me claiming that I have an undetectable rootkit, and you will then be sent on a highly publicized mission to debunk that, which was in fact referring to the Blue Pill Drama. That's actually where I first heard of your company, and when I first came to HN and saw your name, I recognized you as "the rootkit debate guy with the company that I sometimes accidentally call Monsanto". </joke explainer>
I'm a bit surprised that you aren't just saying "haha, ok, looks like I called that one wrong." You actually say that you don't care if I think you're wrong. You are not a good sport, sir.
I don't feel like I detracted from Matthew Green's blog by commenting on an unrelated site. Also, I'm going to play the "everybody else came here to say the same thing" card to dodge any guilt.
But who are you kidding? Every crypto thread on HN is about you, whether you like it or not. Most HN readers hit the comments like before seeing the article, just to see what you have to say about it. I know because I'm one of them. That's not a complaint either, I rely on the expertise of others to balance claims put forth in articles being circulated, and you and marshray are awesome commenters for that reason, because you kind of act as a bridge between academic crypto people and non-crypto security people.
Also: that's not why we did the Blue Pill talk. It drives me a little nuts that people (incl. Joanna Rutkowska) thought it was.
We did the talk because it was a fun talk. All the code for that talk was kernel code, much of it coding directly to MSRs, looking for fiddley places where the presence of a hypervisor would queer measurement results. And we came up with a bunch of cool ideas! And, it turns out we're (mostly) right. But it seems like all people wanted to pay attention to was the drama.
Anyways, I'm explaining things because I can't resist explaining them, not because this is an important issue for us to work out.
I'm a bit surprised that you aren't just saying "haha, ok, looks like I called that one wrong." You actually say that you don't care if I think you're wrong. You are not a good sport, sir.
I don't feel like I detracted from Matthew Green's blog by commenting on an unrelated site. Also, I'm going to play the "everybody else came here to say the same thing" card to dodge any guilt.
But who are you kidding? Every crypto thread on HN is about you, whether you like it or not. Most HN readers hit the comments like before seeing the article, just to see what you have to say about it. I know because I'm one of them. That's not a complaint either, I rely on the expertise of others to balance claims put forth in articles being circulated, and you and marshray are awesome commenters for that reason, because you kind of act as a bridge between academic crypto people and non-crypto security people.