I've already conceded that I am ignorant of many of the details of modern reverse-engineering techniques, so that is manifestly untrue.
> you're not even in the ballpark of correct
You keep saying that, and yet you don't back this up with any details or supporting arguments. In what way am I incorrect? Is my estimate too high? Too low? By how much? Am I wrong when I claim that a lower bound on the computational complexity of auditing is O(n)? If so, what is the correct result? Is it O(sqrt(n))? O(log(n))? O(1)?
BTW, I would actually love to be convinced that I'm wrong about this. That would be a huge two-fold win for me. It would mean that 1) I can stop worrying about security (as long as I use an iPhone) and 2) I would learn something new and almost certainly very interesting. But you (or someone) have to tell me how and why I am wrong, not just that I am wrong.
It would also help if you would stop stop advancing logical fallacies like this straw man:
> cosmic rays make all of information security in some ways unknowable
I don't understand why you're more comfortable discussing this on Slack, but OK, I've fired up my Slack client.
I don't want to pretend that there's a meaningful relationship between image size and reversing challenge, but to the extent there is, it's something more like O(log n).
I've already conceded that I am ignorant of many of the details of modern reverse-engineering techniques, so that is manifestly untrue.
> you're not even in the ballpark of correct
You keep saying that, and yet you don't back this up with any details or supporting arguments. In what way am I incorrect? Is my estimate too high? Too low? By how much? Am I wrong when I claim that a lower bound on the computational complexity of auditing is O(n)? If so, what is the correct result? Is it O(sqrt(n))? O(log(n))? O(1)?
BTW, I would actually love to be convinced that I'm wrong about this. That would be a huge two-fold win for me. It would mean that 1) I can stop worrying about security (as long as I use an iPhone) and 2) I would learn something new and almost certainly very interesting. But you (or someone) have to tell me how and why I am wrong, not just that I am wrong.
It would also help if you would stop stop advancing logical fallacies like this straw man:
> cosmic rays make all of information security in some ways unknowable
I don't understand why you're more comfortable discussing this on Slack, but OK, I've fired up my Slack client.