EPTI repeat:
NO SYSTEM IS BUG FREE - AXIOM
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7072
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
I repeat: NO SYSTEM IS BUG FREE - AXIOM | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:39 travis wrote: 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 I agree with that. If it were easy or useful to make everything unhackable, then yeah, of course everybody would do it. The reason people run LAMP stacks is because they're easier than making your own gobblydeegook. But what I'm arguing against is the perception that "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". There are actually ways to make truly un-exploitable systems, they're just expensive and require considerable expertise. Hence why nobody is really sympathetic for OPM/Target/Home Depot/Yahoo, they were all hacked because of gross negligence, not because security is impossible. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:41 Silvanel wrote: Thats BS. One of the axioms of testing (and that includes penatration testing) is that no system is bug free. This is a long standing aproach which has yielded continuous results for the industry. I repeat: NO SYSTEM IS BUG FREE - AXIOM That is not an axiom, that's practical wisdom. Unless you're going to show me the bug in my awesome and timeless program below: #include <stdio.h> main( ) { printf("hello, world\n"); } Every time I run it, I get the exact intended result. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:41 ShoCkeyy wrote: 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. Re-quoting for this page. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:39 travis wrote: 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 That would be a great way to conclude this - and perhaps add the corollary "any system which is used by real people almost surely has vulnerabilities which can possibly be exploited." Of course, the "theoretically unhackable" claim is a rather strong one, that requires a fair bit of clarification - which I am at this point trying to obtain. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
Stuxnet was a Microsoft Windows exploit. Nobody here is arguing that you can set up a Windows system that's unhackable. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:42 LightSpectra wrote: That is not an axiom, that's practical wisdom. Unless you're going to show me the bug in my awesome and timeless program below: Every time I run it, I get the exact intended result. Really? And are You sure You will get exact same results in (for example) over or undervoltage condition? Or if someone modified stdio.h ??? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:47 Silvanel wrote: Really? And are You sure You will get exact same results in (for example) over or undervoltage condition? Or if someone modified stdio.h ??? Maybe someone fucked with the compiler. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:39 travis wrote: 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 If you put enough asterisks and caveats on the argument, you can prove it both ways! Surely someone's ego is not worth three pages of seeking the medal of "Technically Correct" or whatever the goalposts are at now. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:47 Silvanel wrote: Really? And are You sure You will get exact same results in (for example) over or undervoltage condition? Or if someone modified stdio.h ??? I can guarantee nobody's modified my stdio.h, yup. Hardware misbehavior due to things like undervoltage isn't a software bug. It could be a system bug. Sure, I admit that you can exploit my systems by fucking with my electric wires, but that's not an over-the-Internet exploit, which is what we're discussing. I am the compiler -- I've memorized the corresponding x86 asm. (OK, not really, but compiler attacks are on such an unfeasible, theoretical level that there's no point in even addressing that.) | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
That will go down well in the international community. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote: If you put enough asterisks and caveats on the argument, you can prove it both ways! That's probably a good way to summarize it. Anyways, more relevant hax stuff you might actually care about: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_26607630.html Instructions for diplomat/hackers in Europe. Moving seamlessly across the lands of free movement, loading up a game of 2048 that's actually secretly a hax, and chilling on a private network while doing your thing. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I think hell has frozen over, I actually agree with Ann Coulter. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:55 a_flayer wrote: Look like we've got confirmation that the US buys security bugs in software from vendors. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839168025517522944 That will go down well in the international community. It always amazes me how oblivious the common man is about how our intelligence agencies work. The sheer number of people who were shocked by the Snowden revelations left me scratching my head and wondering how naive the average person is. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On March 08 2017 06:01 LegalLord wrote: It always amazes me how oblivious the common man is about how our intelligence agencies work. The sheer number of people who were shocked by the Snowden revelations left me scratching my head and wondering how naive the average person is. For every person that was shocked, there's two who don't care and at least one that thinks its a good thing. The ones who always believed were considered to be tinfoil hat people. | ||
| ||
