Talk:Infineon Technologies/Archives/2017

BitLocker

Hello

I'd like to inform everyone the there is a discussion about a contribution to this article in Talk:BitLocker § Infineon, because the exact same copy of that contribution is made in the BitLocker article, triggering a dispute in both places.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy?

Maybe I'm just nitpicking. But I'm not so sure the whole issue with the RSA library is a controversy. If Infineon purposely weakened the crypto, that would be controversial. But this does not appear to be the case, it's simply faulty code. Oxford Dictionaries defines controversy as Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. I don't think there's any disagreement here. If there wasn't a decision to generate weaker prime numbers, there is nothing to disagree about that I see.

I think it should be in a new section, titled Security flaw or something like that. Or, since it is just one flaw, its own section. Or something else, but not under Controversies. Still, I wanted to discuss this first, lest I make a controversial change... Digital Brains (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Digital Brains, I agree. I recently made an edit along approximately those lines, but was reverted by Codename Lisa who IIUC felt that the sections weren't substantial enough to stand alone. I'd personally be happy for you to go ahead, but if you'd rather wait for other editors to opine here one way or another so that a broader rough consensus can be built, that might be best. Incidentally, if there has been speculation in a WP:RS that the weak key generation was deliberate (i.e. a backdoor), then this should definitely be added to the section. Zazpot (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You and CL do not have a disagreement there. You had already put the security flaw under a subheading called "Controversy". That is something CL didn't touch. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done The section about security flaw no longer says controversy. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infineon Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327083942/http://www.elektroniknet.de/home/kommunikation/news/n/d/infineon-wireline-wird-lantiq/ to http://www.elektroniknet.de/home/kommunikation/news/n/d/infineon-wireline-wird-lantiq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)