|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 08 2017 04:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:
"Reverse engineer the algorithm" right... If you have the algorithm in your hands, there's no need to reverse engineer anything, you've already broke into the database/server...
What do you mean by "algorithm"? If you mean the cryptographic cipher/hash function, then no. There's plenty of those that have no currently known exploit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function_security_summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_security_summary
On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable."
Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system.
Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then.
|
On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then.
"A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:54 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then. "A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4
So then your definition of "theoretically unhackable" is "complete formal verification of functional correctness" in this context?
|
On March 08 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:54 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Hmmm...
[quote]
Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then. "A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4 So then your definition of "theoretically unhackable" is "complete formal verification of functional correctness" in this context?
Yes.
But that's a tough standard to hold to. That's why I say that many things are not practically hackable but they are theoretically vulnerable. Then there are in fact things that are theoretically invulnerable, like the blockchain.
|
what is the point of what you guys are arguing about again?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:54 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful.
Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then. "A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4 So then your definition of "theoretically unhackable" is "complete formal verification of functional correctness" in this context? Yes. But that's a tough standard to hold to. That's why I say that many things are not practically hackable but they are theoretically vulnerable. Then there are in fact things that are theoretically invulnerable, like the blockchain.
Well even the paper you cited wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it "theoretically unhackable" or anything of the sort - it only promises "strong security guarantees" under a set of (fairly reasonable, but far from guaranteed) assumptions such as compiler/assembler/physical correctness. And you even say that it is "theoretically vulnerable."
So if that one isn't "theoretically unhackable" could you point to what context the blockchain is "theoretically invulnerable" in? Even the IBM marketing pages don't make quite so strong a claim. Even among the "we so secure" bluster they have.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:12 travis wrote:
what is the point of what you guys are arguing about again?
At this point? Clarification on his statement that "some systems are not hackable" and what context he means that in.
|
On March 08 2017 05:12 travis wrote:
what is the point of what you guys are arguing about again?
The idea that hacking is impossible to deter if you want Internet-based infrastructure.
|
On March 08 2017 05:12 travis wrote:
what is the point of what you guys are arguing about again?
This is about forcing a professional in a field to admit that a novice is correct when making an overly broad, simplistic claim about intern security. The professional wants to have a more nuanced, specific discussion about security. The novice just wants to make sweeping claims and generalizations.
|
Its doesnt matter if something is ""theoretically unhackable". In practice everything is made by humans and is prone to errors. hence exploits are always possible.
|
On March 08 2017 05:12 travis wrote:
what is the point of what you guys are arguing about again?
LightSpectra trying to prove two people fools on the subject of cybersecurity in wikileaks era (Illustration "Finally, somebody in this thread besides Mohdoo and myself that knows something about cybersecurity.")
To which everything goes to semantics and contexts.
To try to disprove a point what wasn't actually made. ("The idea that hacking is impossible to deter if you want Internet-based infrastructure.")
Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 02:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. Sorry, that's really just not true. I really hope you don't work in IT for anything important. On March 08 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
We have been to soft on wikileaks and unwilling to deal with them head on. We had the ability to assert enough political pressure to deal with them a long time ago, but no one wanted to. Hopefully that will change, because they are not going away. Is this sarcasm? I would've thought you were a big WikiLeaks proponent.
|
On March 08 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:54 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given.
EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then. "A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4 So then your definition of "theoretically unhackable" is "complete formal verification of functional correctness" in this context? Yes. But that's a tough standard to hold to. That's why I say that many things are not practically hackable but they are theoretically vulnerable. Then there are in fact things that are theoretically invulnerable, like the blockchain. Well even the paper you cited wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it "theoretically unhackable" or anything of the sort - it only promises "strong security guarantees" under a set of (fairly reasonable, but far from guaranteed) assumptions such as compiler/assembler/physical correctness. And you even say that it is "theoretically vulnerable." So if that one isn't "theoretically unhackable" could you point to what context the blockchain is "theoretically invulnerable" in? Even the IBM marketing pages don't make quite so strong a claim. Even among the "we so secure" bluster they have.
No, read the abstract from the citation [16]: the software part of seL4 is theoretically invulnerable to any kind of error.
Blockchain is also the same way by design. Read about how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_(database)#Description
Due to its decentralized nature, you would have to compromise 51% of the population in order to forge a transaction. Even if you found some exploit in the software, it would have to be simultaneously exploited on 51% of all those with a copy of the database. At that point, you've basically hacked everybody in the entire world, which is beyond all theoretical feasibility until Skynet is real life.
|
On March 08 2017 05:23 Silvanel wrote:
Its doesnt matter if something is ""theoretically unhackable". In practice everything is made by humans and is prone to errors. hence exploits are always possible.
But that's precisely what I'm arguing against. That's actually not the case. There are many possible systems, connected to the Internet, which cannot be hacked in any way; neither by some software exploit, nor by social engineering.
|
Thank goodness Travis CS master programmer is here :D Btw, grats on graduation if I'm getting that correctly.
|
On March 08 2017 05:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 05:23 Silvanel wrote:
Its doesnt matter if something is ""theoretically unhackable". In practice everything is made by humans and is prone to errors. hence exploits are always possible. But that's precisely what I'm arguing against. That's actually not the case. There are many possible systems, connected to the Internet, which cannot be hacked in any way; neither by some software exploit, nor by social engineering.
When you say this, you mean that they cannot be completely compromised? That the “hacker” could only gain access to a small part of the system, even through social engineering?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:54 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry. In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable." Meaning there's been a scholarly paper that mathematically demonstrates that there is no possible way to compromise a particular system. Mathematical proofs are much more formal in their definitions than you are being right now. I suppose an example of a paper that shows something to be "proven unhackable" would not be difficult to show then. "A formal proof of functional correctness was completed in 2009.[16] The proof provides a guarantee that the kernel's implementation is correct against its specification, and implies that it is free of implementation bugs such as deadlocks, livelocks, buffer overflows, arithmetic exceptions or use of uninitialised variables. seL4 is claimed to be the first-ever general-purpose operating-system kernel that has been verified.[16]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4 So then your definition of "theoretically unhackable" is "complete formal verification of functional correctness" in this context? Yes. But that's a tough standard to hold to. That's why I say that many things are not practically hackable but they are theoretically vulnerable. Then there are in fact things that are theoretically invulnerable, like the blockchain. Well even the paper you cited wouldn't go nearly as far as to call it "theoretically unhackable" or anything of the sort - it only promises "strong security guarantees" under a set of (fairly reasonable, but far from guaranteed) assumptions such as compiler/assembler/physical correctness. And you even say that it is "theoretically vulnerable." So if that one isn't "theoretically unhackable" could you point to what context the blockchain is "theoretically invulnerable" in? Even the IBM marketing pages don't make quite so strong a claim. Even among the "we so secure" bluster they have. No, read the abstract from the citation [16]: the software part of seL4 is theoretically invulnerable to any kind of error. Blockchain is also the same way by design. Read about how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_(database)#DescriptionDue to its decentralized nature, you would have to compromise 51% of the population in order to forge a transaction. Even if you found some exploit in the software, it would have to be simultaneously exploited on 51% of all those with a copy of the database. At that point, you've basically hacked everybody in the entire world, which is beyond all theoretical feasibility until Skynet is real life.
Complete formal verification is the only known way
to guarantee that a system is free of programming
errors.
We present our experience in performing the for-
mal, machine-checked verification of the seL4 mi-
crokernel from an abstract specification down to its
C implementation. We assume correctness of com-
piler, assembly code, and hardware, and we used a
unique design approach that fuses formal and oper-
ating systems techniques. To our knowledge, this is
the first formal proof of functional correctness of a
complete, general-purpose operating-system kernel.
Functional correctness means here that the implemen-
tation always strictly follows our high-level abstract
specification of kernel behaviour. This encompasses
traditional design and implementation safety proper-
ties such as the kernel will never crash, and it will
never perform an unsafe operation. It also proves
much more: we can predict precisely how the kernel
will behave in every possible situation.
seL4, a third-generation microkernel of L4 prove-
nance, comprises 8,700 lines of C code and 600 lines
of assembler. Its performance is comparable to other
high-performance L4 kernels.
Do explain which part of that makes the statement that you are trying to justify. You are being extremely imprecise with definitions here.
And specifically, what context is blockchain invulnerable in (yes, it has useful features, but what makes it theoretically invulnerable)? You make a statement of "theoretically invulnerable" and say it's "mathematically proven" without providing any of the formal specificity that a mathematical proof would require.
|
On March 08 2017 05:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 05:27 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 05:23 Silvanel wrote:
Its doesnt matter if something is ""theoretically unhackable". In practice everything is made by humans and is prone to errors. hence exploits are always possible. But that's precisely what I'm arguing against. That's actually not the case. There are many possible systems, connected to the Internet, which cannot be hacked in any way; neither by some software exploit, nor by social engineering. When you say this, you mean that they cannot be completely compromised? That the “hacker” could only gain access to a small part of the system, even through social engineering?
Well, you could always turn off the electricity and shut down the system. But I'm talking about things that are essentially feasible without a blatantly apocalyptic scenario like that.
Like I said before, let's say I have two computers. Their only function is that computer A will transmit over the Internet the word "foobar" and computer B will receive it, every hour. This can be set up in such a way that unless you turn off the electricity or cut the phone lines or convince Comcast to cancel your Internet service (things which we should assume an over-the-Internet hacker cannot), there's no way to stop the transmission, there's no way to alter the transmission, there's no way to broadcast a fake transmission to trick B into thinking it's A, etc.
|
On March 08 2017 05:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Thank goodness Travis CS master programmer is here :D Btw, grats on graduation if I'm getting that correctly.
haha no that was an in-thread joke
I won't graduate for a couple years still
as for the discussion I would just make the comment that it doesn't matter if a system is unhackable if it doesn't have practical application
|
You all seem to forget that Stuxnet existed, which used no internet at all. Came in some of the software/hardware for the Nuclear power plant, and then self started. Not going to deep dive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
