<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Articles on 808bits</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/</link><description>Recent content in Articles on 808bits</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://808bits.com/articles/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The key that never exists: a threshold signing ceremony in your browser</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/threshold-signing-ceremony-in-your-browser/</link><pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/threshold-signing-ceremony-in-your-browser/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A cryptographic key is a single point of failure. Whoever holds it holds everything, and most custody disasters reduce to that. Threshold cryptography asks a different question: what if the key never exists in one place, not even at birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;On this page, three keyholders - &lt;strong&gt;alice&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;bob&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;carol&lt;/strong&gt; - create one key together. Any two of them can sign; nobody ever holds the whole key, and there is no trusted dealer who makes it and splits it. The key is born already in pieces.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>FIPS 140-3 is not a security guarantee, and auditors know it</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/fips-140-3-not-a-security-guarantee/</link><pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 00:16:08 +0200</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/fips-140-3-not-a-security-guarantee/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A sales engineer at one of the major HSM vendors told me recently that &lt;strong&gt;over 90 percent of their customers who buy FIPS-enabled HSMs run them with FIPS mode disabled&lt;/strong&gt;. They pay a premium for the certificate, then switch off the configuration it describes. By the end of this article you will understand why that is often the correct engineering decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;On September 21, 2026, every remaining FIPS 140-2 certificate &lt;a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/fips-140-3-transition-effort"&gt;moves to NIST&amp;rsquo;s historical list&lt;/a&gt;, and modules on that list &lt;a href="https://www.safelogic.com/blog/what-happens-on-september-21-2026"&gt;should no longer be included in new federal procurements&lt;/a&gt;. Procurement teams are spending this summer chasing vendors for FIPS 140-3 paper, and vendors are spending it in a validation queue. A lot of money and attention is flowing toward a certificate.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>You can't audit entropy after the fact: operator lessons from the Coldcard seed failure</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/coldcard-entropy-failure-lessons/</link><pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/coldcard-entropy-failure-lessons/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Over two days starting July 30, 2026, coins left Coldcard-generated wallets in three coordinated waves. By August 2, forensic work by Galaxy Research put the confirmed total near &lt;strong&gt;1,367 BTC ($88.6M) across more than 4,500 addresses&lt;/strong&gt;. The victims had done what the industry told them to do. They bought a well-regarded, security-focused hardware signer, generated the seed on the device, and kept it offline. Many had not touched those wallets in years. The attacker never touched a single device.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>The Fireblocks recovery tools are free. Here's what they prove, and what they don't</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/fireblocks-recovery-tool-what-it-proves/</link><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/fireblocks-recovery-tool-what-it-proves/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Fireblocks gives every workspace owner an open-source path to reconstruct their keys from the customer-held backup: the legacy &lt;a href="https://github.com/fireblocks/fireblocks-key-recovery-tool"&gt;&lt;code&gt;fireblocks-key-recovery-tool&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and the current &lt;a href="https://github.com/fireblocks/recovery"&gt;Recovery Utility&lt;/a&gt;. This is genuinely good design: your exit from the platform does not depend on the platform being alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;But &amp;ldquo;the tool exists&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;we are recoverable&amp;rdquo; are different claims. This article walks through what the tooling actually does, what a successful run proves, and the gap between that proof and what a board, an auditor, or a regulator means when they ask &lt;em&gt;&amp;ldquo;can you recover?&amp;rdquo;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>DORA exit strategies for digital-asset custody: what a reviewer actually wants to see</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/dora-exit-plan-digital-asset-custody/</link><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/dora-exit-plan-digital-asset-custody/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, in application since January 2025) requires financial entities to maintain &lt;strong&gt;documented exit strategies for ICT third-party providers supporting critical or important functions&lt;/strong&gt;, and to manage concentration risk on those providers. For most ICT services, firms can lean on familiar patterns: data export, parallel running, a migration plan to an alternative vendor.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;Digital-asset custody platforms break those patterns in an interesting way: the thing you need to take out is not data. It&amp;rsquo;s &lt;strong&gt;signing capability over assets on-chain&lt;/strong&gt;, and whether you can actually take it out depends on cryptographic facts about your setup, not on contract clauses.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>How to run a custody key-recovery drill without exposing a single private key</title><link>https://808bits.com/articles/custody-key-recovery-drill/</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://808bits.com/articles/custody-key-recovery-drill/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Fire drills don&amp;rsquo;t burn the building down. A custody key-recovery drill, done right, follows the same principle: you rehearse every step of recovering from your key backup &lt;strong&gt;except the one step that creates risk: materializing a private key&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;This matters because the most common objection to rehearsing recovery is security: &amp;ldquo;we don&amp;rsquo;t want to handle live key material more often than we must.&amp;rdquo; Correct instinct, wrong conclusion. Modern MPC recovery tooling separates &lt;em&gt;verification&lt;/em&gt; (reconstruct internally, confirm against registered public keys, expose nothing) from &lt;em&gt;revelation&lt;/em&gt; (export the private key). A drill built on verify-only execution gets you nearly all of the assurance with none of the exposure.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>