Hacking 2000 years from now...

kzt wrote:

pnakasone wrote:Most security systems and technology fail-safes are not designed to stop some one like Horace Harkness who has been described as one of the best hackers and engineers in the series.What really helped his efforts was that PRN tech was designed to be easily maintained by low skilled and trained personal(at least compared to RMN standards).

Well, no most are high on flash and buzzwords and cool new features. And cheap to build.

Serious systems are in fact designed to stop experts. That is why DoD communication electronics has the APL instead of just the FIPS certification. As another example, some of the most experienced safecrackers in the world work for UL testing safes. They get the blueprints and lots of time to examine a sample inside and out. Then they lock it and attempt to break in, getting the tools and time the cert the mfg wants says it can resist. That's because the insurance companies that created UL have a lot of interest in keeping crooks out of safes long enough for the police to show up.

DoD should scrap everything they have now and start anew. They should proceed as if rats are in their system at the very moment. Once your system has been compromised and the infiltrators are allowed to roam your system unchecked for years. Trash it!

Everyone just doesn't seem to understand the nature of the beast. It is difficult to impossible to shield a system that is connected to the outside world because the designers DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A THEORY OF EVERYTHING! Someone always knows more than you do.

Designing security measures is a career for most people who are employed to do it. Yet it is a passion and a career for many hacktivists. And hactivists greatly outnumber anyone else -- it is the 12-yr-old kid next door, all over the world. How the hell anyone think they can all be shut out is beyond me. Unless, as my own Cray, IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!

And even then my protection isn't foolproof. An infected thumb drive and voila.

The CIA and the DoD have both been infiltrated. Trying to really secure the systems with the research of HACMS is the premise of this thread.

The main point I tried to share is that NO method is foolproof because the system must remain usable -- and the users themselves represent a weak link. As weak as the link that leads back to the designers. There is one side of Air Force One that is never allowed to be seen -- probably because if one knows the lay of the land...


Anonymous hacktivists group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _Anonymous

LulzSec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LulzSec

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/70699.html

http://www.cio.com/article/2371547/secu ... s-say.html

JohnRoth wrote:Isn't going to be possible. See:

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/computer- ... roof-code/

There are things we give SF authors without a quibble, like faster than light space drives. However, we raise a bit of a fuss when predictable developments in current technologies seem not to have happened because plot.

Software development is my field. I've known about formal methods since the 80s. It's nice to see that they're advanced enough to get out of the toy system stage into actual real-world application. In another 2000 years I don't think that the word "hacker" will exist except in dictionaries of obsolete words. Heck, I doubt if it'll exist in 100 years.

Simple truth, if a software is meant to interface with anything beyond itself, it CAN be hacked, end of story. Only question is how difficult it is.

And even software meant only to be run locally on a closed off system can often be hacked as long as you have input access.

If the software has no weaknesses, that just means a hacker can´t just coast along and be lazy about it. Software with weaknesses are stuff even scriptkiddies can hack without much problem.

But no weaknesses does not mean hackproof.
It´s just a question of how much time and effort is needed to succeed.
A system that is connected to other systems, MUST by default be able to communicate with those others, and that leaves a way to get in, even if a highly secure such system may take ridiculous amount of effort to crack into.


And then of course, there are the tools being developed already now, and the theory for what may be developed in a near future.

The ability to directly interface with a computer´s hardware, without going through its network first? Pretty damn "GOD-Mode, I win" kinda thing at the moment, because it lets you inject ANY code you want to.

cthia wrote:DoD should scrap everything they have now and start anew. They should proceed as if rats are in their system at the very moment. Once your system has been compromised and the infiltrators are allowed to roam your system unchecked for years. Trash it!

That costs a huge of amount of time and money. The people who control the budget do not want to pay for it no matter how much sense it would make,

pnakasone wrote:

cthia wrote:DoD should scrap everything they have now and start anew. They should proceed as if rats are in their system at the very moment. Once your system has been compromised and the infiltrators are allowed to roam your system unchecked for years. Trash it!

That costs a huge of amount of time and money. The people who control the budget do not want to pay for it no matter how much sense it would make,

As opposed to the "priceless" cost of data stolen and possibly lives, as in names of spies, missions, etc., compromised and lost as well? And the lost of hardware? Etc?

2000 years from now. hacking will have become so sophisticated that not even the human brain will be safe.

See MAlign and nanite. Some of our brains already show signs of being hacked.

cthia wrote:As opposed to the "priceless" cost of data stolen and possibly lives, as in names of spies, missions, etc., compromised and lost as well? And the lost of hardware? Etc?

It only becomes priceless when it has already been stolen, obviously...

cthia wrote:2000 years from now. hacking will have become so sophisticated that not even the human brain will be safe.

See MAlign and nanite. Some of our brains already show signs of being hacked.

There is the possibility that your chances of getting Alzheimer's may be increased by the herpes simplex virus (the type that causes cold sores). So yes, our brains might being hacked right now. Since the rest of our bodies' organs are under attack from diseases and other substances (carcinogens), why should our brains be exempt?

cthia wrote:As opposed to the "priceless" cost of data stolen and possibly lives, as in names of spies, missions, etc., compromised and lost as well? And the lost of hardware? Etc?

All too often no matter how well or how often you try explain the issue to some of the bean counters that spending x amount of money will save them y amount of money later. They will only care about the x amount of spending they have to do now.No matter how much proof you have that it will work out the way say it will.

pnakasone wrote:

cthia wrote:As opposed to the "priceless" cost of data stolen and possibly lives, as in names of spies, missions, etc., compromised and lost as well? And the lost of hardware? Etc?

All too often no matter how well or how often you try explain the issue to some of the bean counters that spending x amount of money will save them y amount of money later. They will only care about the x amount of spending they have to do now.No matter how much proof you have that it will work out the way say it will.

Isn't that the truth. Par for the American course, across the board. American businesses refuse to invest in technologies that won't show a profit for 10 years down the road. We must show a profit next quarter.

That is part of the reason foreign companies are presently killing the American auto maker, because they invested millions refitting assembly lines with robots, even though they knew they wouldn't recoup from those investments for a decade.

Merrill Lynch and their bulls has gone soft here in America.

https://youtu.be/htq2GINcBXE

cthia wrote:Isn't that the truth. Par for the American course, across the board. American businesses refuse to invest in technologies that won't show a profit for 10 years down the road. We must show a profit next quarter.

That is part of the reason foreign companies are presently killing the American auto maker, because they invested millions refitting assembly lines with robots, even though they knew they wouldn't recoup from those investments for a decade.

Merrill Lynch and their bulls has gone soft here in America.

https://youtu.be/htq2GINcBXE

The tendency is even worse in ambiguous disaster prevention/preparedness situations. Some have the view that it is more cost effective to pay the clean up and recovery costs then maintain the costs of prevention and preparedness.