>>7783478 It is easy to hack into closed networks. If there is a computer that access to the internet and its at least in range of the closed network than you can jump into that network through hoops. This is why closed networks have rules that forbid phones, computers or any other communication device capable being hacked through the internet into those rooms. Also you can infiltrate the network in person and upload a virus. This is how Stuxnet was accomplished.
>>7784009 He's just making the point that they arent idiot proof and one must go to extrordinary lengths to keep a closed network completely closed. As another anon said, human beings are the easiest part of the system to hack and a closed network does nothing to change that.
>>7783453 So more or less non-networked systems...? A black box that manages itself and no one, not even the creator, can access it?
Seems like a solid plan.
>>7783465 >He's good for the kids He's terrible for everyone, especially kids. Science shows in the 60's and 70's, some of them at least, were solid. All of this NOVA shit is just sensationalized disingenuous shit presented as absolute fact.
If only the world had some Feynmans, or Diracs. But the era of people like that is unfortunately done and gone. We're just stuck with modern media culture, and people like this and that obnoxious twat Lawrence Krauss. This is the biggest force for deluding people about the nature of science.
Meh, they may be shit but they are doing good. Let me explain why popsci exists
>Universities need more money >Increasing tuition is becoming less politically welcoming as people now rally against university cost inflation >Need way for retards to get more interested in college while also decreasing the people that graduate so there is less competition
>Make a bunch of popsci shows that show science as a simple thing. As shit that we already know so everything immediately follows and is obvious. Just like when you brag to your friends about knowing that your dick has 69 chromosomes because you saw it on youtube! >These people who were introduced to science via cute video editing instead of cold textbooks get high expectations of science education while learning literally nothing >Retards graduate high school >They go into college. I wanna be an engineer! Physicist! Chemist! Biologist! Mathematician! >The first two years they do just fine because some of them were average >By junior year they can't anymore, they flunk everything dropped out.
Thousands of dollars into the university. No market inflation as none of them graduated. It is, in my honest opinion a genius plan. Also, Neil and Bill make tons of money making the shows so that is a plus for academia. Rich PhDs.
>>7784083 I heard they didn't actually have an agent on the inside, but they managed to infect the USB of a guy who worked there and he unwittingly transferred the virus. Sounds like a shit security policy to let employees bring in their own shit on USB's, though.
>>7783762 >So how is that 'unhackable'? That is just one definition of an exploit: someone's mistake. So, by >>7783464 >It is literally impossible to create unhackable systems. You mean, >It is literally impossible to ever do anything right.
Correct systems are possible. You just have to do what's necessary to achieve it: you have to avoid complications, you have to prioritize correctness over price, performance, feature list, or schedule. You have to keep the task manageable and spend the resources necessary. You have to actually choose correct systems when there are other options with tempting advantages gained by cutting corners and expanding scope. You have to go on using a correct system you have until you have another correct system to replace it with, not switch away from correctness because there's some feature you want in an incorrect system. You need a clear, complete, and achievable behavior specification, with equally clear and complete limitations on its behavior.
Most of all, you can't make a mess of your system to make it harder for the competition to clone or replace.
It's not impossible to create unhackable systems, but if customers tolerate being hacked, unhackable systems are unlikely to win in the market.
>>7784131 It is impossible to create unhackable systems. Just by allowing people tu access your system you are allowing problems to happen and that is why you keep a team of people who can handle the problems because problems will happen.
>by cutting corners You have no idea of how many corners you'd have to cut to make something unhackable.
>>7784072 You're saying this as though you actually think I just "don't get it.". Don't see "how it works".
I do see how it works, and I don't like it. It's a net negative for everything, and everyone. This is something to to be stomped out over time, not talked up as even remotely clever. Humans have been doing this trash since before we even knew what a society was.
>>7784142 >It is impossible to create unhackable systems. >You have no idea of how many corners you'd have to cut to make something unhackable. You're: a) not making any argument, just asserting your opinion, b) contradicting yourself.
>>7784131 >>It is literally impossible to ever do anything right. More accurately, >It is literally impossible to ever do everything right. If a system relies on humans never making mistakes, it's not a secure system. Remember, the humans involved in a secure system are PART of the system. If a part of your system is known to frequently make mistakes you'd have to be a moron to design your system to rely on that part being 100% reliable.
>>7784152 Sorry about contradicting myself. Let me complete my sentence.
>You know how many corners you'd have to cut to make something unhackable? >Infinitely many. Don't make anything at all and go hide in a cave made out of pure copper.
Are you in any way informed about cyber-security? Do you know what separates people who 'hack' shit with people who get paid by big companies to hack them and give them a report on how they did it, despite of them using literally EVERY good practice in security that we have developed since the first days of computer networks?
>>7784161 >Are you in any way informed about cyber-security? I'm a computer programmer and hardware designer. My education was in electrical engineering.
>despite of them using literally EVERY good practice in security that we have developed since the first days of computer networks? This is your argument, seriously? "They're not violating any 'best practices' and they still get hacked!"?
The hardware is incorrect shit. The operating systems are incorrect shit. The compilers are incorrect shit. The libraries are incorrect shit. Nothing built on top of those will work correctly. They are all far too complicated. No one can completely understand them, so they can't be made correct.
The customers don't want correct systems, they want features and compatibility and performance at a low price and they want it now. Given the choice of "This always does exactly what it's supposed to." or "This mostly does what it's supposed to, runs twice times as fast, and costs half as much." they always pick the latter.
The shit "security experts" do is so far removed from the root of the problem that they're basically just scarecrows. If your system needs "security experts" it will always be insecure and you will never be able to trust it.
People just don't care enough about getting hacked to pay for unhackable, correct systems. They believe idiots like "security experts" who tell them that the answer is not to insist on actually secure systems, but to give money to scarecrows. Then they get hacked anyway, but they "did everything they could!"
>>7784212 >This is your argument, seriously? Yes, got a problem with logic?
>everything is incorrect Well, you said you are EE right? Why don't you use your superior knowledge of how all of these systems are flawed and create hardware and software that is literally unhackable and then sell it to the government and become a millionaire?
>The customers don't want correct systems We are talking strictly about the government here. Maybe a service company will care about what costs less but not the government. They got shit tons of money and if they could do anything to stop the hundreds of cyber attacks from Russia and China every day you better believe they would be sucking dick just to get that technology.
The rest of your post really is just more of the same.
Now, give me one reason for why the government would not implement these perfect systems you speak
>No money They just ask congress to increase their budgets for a couple of years
>>7784238 >Why don't you use your superior knowledge of how all of these systems are flawed and create hardware and software that is literally unhackable and then sell it to the government and become a millionaire? I've already told you: the problem is that the customers won't choose the correct system over the incorrect system, as long as the incorrect system has better performance, comes out sooner, is cheaper, or has more features.
They'll tell you something like, "Oh, we need compatibility with X." where X is some system that's too kludgy and complicated to ever be implemented correctly.
Correctness is expensive, and nobody's buying. Worse than it being expensive, there are a whole crowd of clowns like you, who have a vested interest in having people believe that it's not possible.
>>7784050 I agree, Krauss' pop-science book "A Universe From Nothing" was the worst Christmas present, not quite as awful as getting a "Big Bang Theory Trivia" book. Apparently my mother thought, being a physics student means that you automatically watch the show.
>>7783453 Nigga, if your protocols are Turing complete then your system will always be susceptible to attack. If your language isn't functional and verified by proofs then you're almost guaranteed unexpected behavior on any nontrivial piece of software.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.