Hacking 2000 years from now...

You wouldn't need a guidance system. You'd just need a very accurate clock that corrected for time dilation.

I would assume that in a spacefaring civilization with lots of interplanetary traffic and asteroid mining operations that the orbits of planets, particularly habitable planets, would be well-documented in whatever version of Sailing Directions we'd have in the 40th century.

In the worst case you might need a spread of freighters, like old-style WWII torpedoes.

You all no doubt know that in space there is very little drag. It isn't like calculating an ICBM trajectory or even a low-earth-orbit where this at least some drag. So if you point your suicide ship where the planet will be you are very likely going to hit said planet.

As an added bonus, you'd probably want this whole show to be in the plane of the ecliptic and have your suicide ship come in on a tangent to the orbit. That way minor errors will tend to cancel out and your probability of a hit (and remember planets are only small compared to space as a whole, compared to a million-ton freighter they are huge) will be higher.

Every single speck of dust will add a gravitic distortion.

Granted, miniscule and likely to cancel out, but everything will add it.

Random rocks.

That 1 in a hundred year comet.

Even a passing mega ton freighter.

Further out you go the greater chance of a deflection from something that you have no way of knowing is there.


Which is why the MALIGN went with torps with end of run corection ability instead of straight kinetic strike on places like the ship yards.

Annachie wrote:Further out you go the greater chance of a deflection from something that you have no way of knowing is there.


Which is why the MALIGN went with torps with end of run corection ability instead of straight kinetic strike on places like the ship yards.

Which is why it seems when someone goes for frac-c attack with missiles they have them burn out just far enough away to make them a tricky intercept target, say 8-10 million km; close enough to minimize random perturbations and benifit from powered course adjustment but far enough to be a chancy target for defenders with no real time grav signature during the very brief intercept window.

Speaking of hacking 2000 years from now...

I wonder if the P vs NP computer problem will be solved in the Honorverse.

It is a Millenium Problem, meaning it has a $1M price tag on its head. Its immediate importance is in the area of cryptography. No system would be safe. In fact, code breaking algorithms derived from the solution of P vs NP would become a very fast safe cracker.

There were seven of these problems. One was solved.

Even more back to topic, even a formal proof doesn't mean much if you find an attack outside the assumptions of the proof. This happened just recently with the KRACK attack on WPA.

https://www.krackattacks.com wrote:
our attacks do not violate the security properties proven in formal analysis of the 4-way handshake. In particular, these proofs state that the negotiated encryption key remains private, and that the identity of both the client and Access Point (AP) is confirmed. Our attacks do not leak the encryption key. Additionally, although normal data frames can be forged if TKIP or GCMP is used, an attacker cannot forge handshake messages and hence cannot impersonate the client or AP during handshakes. Therefore, the properties that were proven in formal analysis of the 4-way handshake remain true. However, the problem is that the proofs do not model key installation.

cthia wrote:****** *

Mistake? Deliberate? Who gives a shit! I rest...one more phucking case.

Vet! Vet! Vet!

And this is for any rebuttals...

*ultimate facepalm*

You don't have a clue how antivirus works do you?
While scanning, if unknown code is found that cannot be determined heuristically to be SAFE, then the file is quarantined and more or less of the code is "phoned home" to allow professional detailed analysis.

You have to manually disable this function if you don't want it to happen and doing so DOES makes your system less secure because the automatic parts of AV simply cannot handle every kind of new code that comes along.


Fun fact, noone actually knowledgeable has ever accused Kaspersky of doing anything malicious.

Tenshinai wrote:

cthia wrote:****** *

Mistake? Deliberate? Who gives a shit! I rest...one more phucking case.

Vet! Vet! Vet!

And this is for any rebuttals...

*ultimate facepalm*

You don't have a clue how antivirus works do you?
While scanning, if unknown code is found that cannot be determined heuristically to be SAFE, then the file is quarantined and more or less of the code is "phoned home" to allow professional detailed analysis.

You have to manually disable this function if you don't want it to happen and doing so DOES makes your system less secure because the automatic parts of AV simply cannot handle every kind of new code that comes along.


Fun fact, noone actually knowledgeable has ever accused Kaspersky of doing anything malicious.

Um, yes, I know how it works. Even attempted some code myself years ago when worms and trojans first hit the net. I've even watched code at work from a Linux Live CD featuring The SANS Investigative Forensic Toolkit ("SIFT"). You should try it sometimes.

Funner Fact: Puh-lease, Kaspersky may never be charged. It is a cat and mouse game. It is in the best interest of the N.S.A., NOT to let on to what they know. On what planet do you live? You actually continue to believe that it is prudent for the USA to use Russian cybersecurity software??? Really? Please Imaginos, DO PUT DOWN THE STILTHY WEED. THAT SHIT'S WAY TOO DAMN POTENT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION! IT'S ALIEN WEED!

Like I said. I called the insanity of using Russian security software for over 15 years!

American Russian security software isn't even an oxymoron. It is simply a downright moron!

Though military computers never used it anyway. For good cause!

But don't sweat it Imaginos. I can't imagine why you'd imagine you'd still want to continue to use it. But alas, you can. Sweden is a free country too. You can simply opt to keep it!

Funner Fact: Puh-lease, Kaspersky may never be charged. It is a cat and mouse game. It is in the best interest of the N.S.A., NOT to let on to what they know.

Yes yes we all know that excuse. It's getting old.

The company will never ever be charged because neither the NSA or anyone else have even the slightest hint of actual support for claiming wrongdoing, much less evidence of such.

You actually continue to believe that it is prudent for the USA to use Russian cybersecurity software???

Prudent? Of course not.
But not because Kaspersky is in any way unreliable, but because any nation should if possible use "homegrown" software in critical or sensitive systems.

Because no matter how reliable a foreign company is, it still means you have less oversight and control against piggybacking and the like and you cannot guarantee that the company will always REMAIN reliable.

Like I said. I called the insanity of using Russian security software for over 15 years!

It's only insanity when used carelessly, and that is true regardless where it came from.

Um, yes, I know how it works. Even attempted some code myself years ago when worms and trojans first hit the net. I've even watched code at work from a Linux Live CD featuring The SANS Investigative Forensic Toolkit ("SIFT"). You should try it sometimes.

I've spent more than a little time on a few hacker forums in the last 20 years, i got a fair amount of information through that thank you very much.

Tenshinai wrote:

Funner Fact: Puh-lease, Kaspersky may never be charged. It is a cat and mouse game. It is in the best interest of the N.S.A., NOT to let on to what they know.

Yes yes we all know that excuse. It's getting old.

The company will never ever be charged because neither the NSA or anyone else have even the slightest hint of actual support for claiming wrongdoing, much less evidence of such.

You actually continue to believe that it is prudent for the USA to use Russian cybersecurity software???

Prudent? Of course not.
But not because Kaspersky is in any way unreliable, but because any nation should if possible use "homegrown" software in critical or sensitive systems.

Because no matter how reliable a foreign company is, it still means you have less oversight and control against piggybacking and the like and you cannot guarantee that the company will always REMAIN reliable.

Like I said. I called the insanity of using Russian security software for over 15 years!

It's only insanity when used carelessly, and that is true regardless where it came from.

Um, yes, I know how it works. Even attempted some code myself years ago when worms and trojans first hit the net. I've even watched code at work from a Linux Live CD featuring The SANS Investigative Forensic Toolkit ("SIFT"). You should try it sometimes.

I've spent more than a little time on a few hacker forums in the last 20 years, i got a fair amount of information through that thank you very much.

Temper the info obtained in hacker forums with your own investigative blood, sweat and tears. Man has a tendency to learn much more by doing, than by reading or hearing.

That is a powerful toolkit I linked to above. Very powerful. And free. A computer friend of mine once commented that aliens in UFOs were visiting Earth simply to download the latest SIFT.

As a user, it doesn't matter who is ultimately to blame as to why Kaspersky is unreliable. The fact that it is being used to pilfer through private, personal and classified information makes it unreliable!

Are we—as consumers, as well as the N.S.A.—to say "Oh, it isn't really Kaspersky's fault, so we should continue to use it."

::appropriate use of a facepalm::

As a user, it doesn't matter who is ultimately to blame as to why Kaspersky is unreliable. The fact that it is being used to pilfer through private, personal and classified information makes it unreliable!

Are we—as consumers, as well as the N.S.A.—to say "Oh, it isn't really Kaspersky's fault, so we should continue to use it."

Uh, say what?

By that thought, we CANNOT USE ANY antivirus or heck even firewalls, because ALL of them can be exploited in the EXACT SAME WAY.

And since Kaspersky's software is one of the BETTER in that regards, you're basically arguing that because a software that is better was exploited, you should use the software that are EASIER to exploit the same way because, uh, yeah, something weird?

You're arguing that as long as something is not exploited, it is by definition safe. That how difficult it is to exploit a piece of software is completely irrelevant, only whether someone has exploited it, REGARDLESS of how or why, counts.


Also, the reason it COULD be exploited was due to USER being CARELESS, not because of anything bad in the software itself.

No, sorry but your argument isn't just absurdly invalid, it's collecting transdimensional galactic airmiles from how far out it is.