Will the RISC-V architecture alone dissuade backdoors by the dark powers for hacking?
No — RISC-V’s openness alone does not prevent backdoors if the implementation is proprietary. Here’s how it breaks down:
- RISC-V ISA is open, meaning anyone can design a chip from it, and its instruction set is auditable.
- But the specific implementation by the proprietary ecosystem — the microarchitecture, firmware, bootloaders, and secure enclaves — can all remain closed. Backdoors can hide there.
- So even if the ISA is pure, a closed-source chip can be as opaque as ARM or x86 in practice.
Only fully open implementations (e.g., open RTL design, open firmware, open toolchain) plus transparent manufacturing offer genuine auditability.
So: RISC-V reduces theoretical risk of hidden instructions, but not practical risk if corporations wrap it in proprietary layers.
While the theoretical operational modus operandi is understood, the present development status across the world isn’t known.
The smartphone described herein, along with LineageOS/GrapheneOS and FOSS software would be the ideal solution to safeguard citizens’ safety.
However, such a fool-proof system might not be good for a nation. Terrorist groups will use this system to bypass agencies’ scrutiny.
Hence, logically, a few pre-determined, widely agreed-upon and acceptable backdoors could be kept for monitoring citizens’ activities by the nation’s internal security apparatus.
However, the proprietary ecosystem must not use the aforesaid argument as a plea to exploit citizens and their freedom to gather information, curb them or misuse them for furthering their own self-interest.
There must be a balance between the two: eternal vigil is the price to be paid for an informed democracy to thrive, it is said.
However, what is the status of such a phone’s arrival in the market? Any latest updates?