But, hey, it's software. Anything possible; with computers it's best to look for what's likely, not what's possible.
When it comes to security, this is a horrible assumption.
It is the nature of the game that an attacker should be expected to use whatever piece that they control in the most malicious way possible. Thus if it is possible, and they are motivated, then you should never assume that they wouldn't do that. Because push comes to shove, why wouldn't they?
And if you're wrong, well, a little paranoia never hurt anyone. Particularly since in this case exercising paranoia is a simple matter of mixing in hardware randomness BEFORE doing all of the other complicating stuff, as opposed to the current order of doing all of the other complicating stuff AND THEN grabbing from potentially untrustworthy hardware that could be playing tricks.
Thus if it is possible, and they are motivated, then you should never assume that they wouldn't do that. Because push comes to shove, why wouldn't they?
That's sort of my point. "Push comes to shove" -> they'll do the easy thing first.
When it comes to security, this is a horrible assumption.
It is the nature of the game that an attacker should be expected to use whatever piece that they control in the most malicious way possible. Thus if it is possible, and they are motivated, then you should never assume that they wouldn't do that. Because push comes to shove, why wouldn't they?
And if you're wrong, well, a little paranoia never hurt anyone. Particularly since in this case exercising paranoia is a simple matter of mixing in hardware randomness BEFORE doing all of the other complicating stuff, as opposed to the current order of doing all of the other complicating stuff AND THEN grabbing from potentially untrustworthy hardware that could be playing tricks.