If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Today's headline: Cryptography breakthrough could make software unhackable. Tomorrow's headline: Cryptography breakthrough could render all software hackable   (wired.com) divider line 34
    More: Unlikely, Cryptography breakthrough, line coding, commercial software, headline, Microsoft Research, software patch, computer programs, computing  
•       •       •

1639 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:56 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-03 02:15:33 PM  
Having obtained an audience of the King an Ingenious Patriot pulled a paper from his pocket, saying:

"May it please your Majesty, I have here a formula for constructing armour-plating which no gun can pierce. If these plates are adopted in the Royal Navy our warships will be invulnerable, and therefore invincible. Here, also, are reports of your Majesty's Ministers, attesting the value of the invention. I will part with my right in it for a million tumtums."

After examining the papers, the King put them away and promised him an order on the Lord High Treasurer of the Extortion Department for a million tumtums.

"And here," said the Ingenious Patriot, pulling another paper from another pocket, "are the working plans of a gun that I have invented, which will pierce that armour. Your Majesty's Royal Brother, the Emperor of Bang, is anxious to purchase it, but loyalty to your Majesty's throne and person constrains me to offer it first to your Majesty. The price is one million tumtums."

Having received the promise of another check, he thrust his hand into still another pocket, remarking:

"The price of the irresistible gun would have been much greater, your Majesty, but for the fact that its missiles can be so effectively averted by my peculiar method of treating the armour plates with a new -"

The King signed to the Great Head Factotum to approach.

"Search this man," he said, "and report how many pockets he has."

"Forty-three, Sire," said the Great Head Factotum, completing the scrutiny.

"May it please your Majesty," cried the Ingenious Patriot, in terror, "one of them contains tobacco."

"Hold him up by the ankles and shake him," said the King; "then give him a check for forty-two million tumtums and put him to death. Let a decree issue declaring ingenuity a capital offence."
 
2014-02-03 02:28:58 PM  

abb3w: Having obtained an audience of the King an Ingenious Patriot pulled a paper from his pocket, saying:


Done in one. Beautiful.
 
2014-02-03 02:48:43 PM  
FTFA:
This obfuscation scheme is unbreakable, the team showed, provided that a certain newfangled problem about lattices is as hard to solve as the team thinks it is.

No, the obfuscation scheme is hard to break, but not unbreakable, unless a certain newfangled problem about lattices is literally impossible to solve.

If it's just really, really, really hard, then breaking the obfuscation scheme will be really, really, really hard, but not impossible.
 
2014-02-03 03:09:10 PM  
www.cyberpunkreview.com
 
2014-02-03 03:27:54 PM  
To hack = to bear as in "I can hack it".

Interpretation: New breakthrough makes software unbearable.
 
2014-02-03 03:37:44 PM  
"But in 2007, Shafi Goldwasser of MIT and Guy Rothblum of Microsoft Research Silicon Valley in Mountain View, Calif., showed that an indistinguishability obfuscator, if it could be built, would be the best possible obfuscator. The idea is that if some other obfuscator were the best, you could use it to garble the program and then put both the original program and the garbled version through the indistinguishability obfuscator for an additional layer of distortion. "

You know, if someone were to throw a hot cup of tea into the mix and then turn everything on, I bet the result would at least be very highly improbable.
 
2014-02-03 04:03:02 PM  
"What if it were possible to mask the inner workings not just of a proof, but of a computer program, so that people could use the program without being able to figure out how it worked? "

we call it dot Net.
 
2014-02-03 04:15:32 PM  
Make unhackable software with this one easy trick! Scientific breakthrough by scientists at Cambridge shows you how!
 
2014-02-03 04:29:15 PM  
MC Frontalot's "Secrets of the Future" soundly debunks this.
 
2014-02-03 04:30:23 PM  
The Titanic was UNSINKABLE.
 
2014-02-03 04:33:01 PM  
Isn't this just a very fancy version of security through obscurity?
 
2014-02-03 04:43:55 PM  

Sybarite: [www.cyberpunkreview.com image 650x352]


[tiny fist, shaking]
 
2014-02-03 05:00:25 PM  
Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".
 
2014-02-03 05:14:29 PM  
Cryptanalysis breakthrough renders all software hackable subby. A cryptographer would be doing his job very poorly if he made stuff easier to break.
 
2014-02-03 05:15:25 PM  

jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".


There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.
 
2014-02-03 05:15:47 PM  

ChubbyTiger: Isn't this just a very fancy version of security through obscurity?


Yeah.  But apparently if you make it just fancy enough it actually does something useful.

So, if the article is actually correct (haven't read the paper myself), it's like security-through-obscurity the same way that modern encryption systems are like those invisible-ink spy pens you can get at the dollar store.
 
2014-02-03 05:21:50 PM  
More futuristically, it would allow people to create autonomous virtual agents that they could send out into the computing "cloud" to act on their behalf.

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]

It's cute when reporters say something incredibly stupid in the hopes of looking competent.
 
2014-02-03 05:35:12 PM  

whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.


You mean that clever fake?
 
2014-02-03 05:44:08 PM  
The NSA will be very busy this week.
 
2014-02-03 05:49:07 PM  

Sybarite: [www.cyberpunkreview.com image 650x352]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-03 05:55:02 PM  
The IOCCC would like a word.
 
2014-02-03 06:01:49 PM  

serial_crusher: More futuristically, it would allow people to create autonomous virtual agents that they could send out into the computing "cloud" to act on their behalf.

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]

It's cute when reporters say something incredibly stupid in the hopes of looking competent.


Why?  That's actually kind of a cool idea, if a bit fanciful at the moment.
 
2014-02-03 06:05:46 PM  

whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.


whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.


No, it wouldn't. I asked it, and it snickered and pointed out that it just hasn't been hacked YET. A few hundred years of ape-braining ain't shiat.
What incredibly VAIN little monkeys we are.
 
2014-02-03 06:07:01 PM  

Abner Doon: serial_crusher: More futuristically, it would allow people to create autonomous virtual agents that they could send out into the computing "cloud" to act on their behalf.

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]

It's cute when reporters say something incredibly stupid in the hopes of looking competent.

Why?  That's actually kind of a cool idea, if a bit fanciful at the moment.


Just the idea that you need magic in breakable crypto to accomplish something like that.
You're afraid your boss is going to download the program that you're using to send fake emails on your behalf and decrypt it to see that's what the program is doing? Sounds like he has to be mighty suspicious already to undertake something like that.
 
2014-02-03 06:08:08 PM  

machoprogrammer: Make unhackable software with this one easy trick! Scientific breakthrough by scientists at Cambridge shows you how!


Programmers HATE this one, weird trick!
 
2014-02-03 06:19:20 PM  

dittybopper: whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.

You mean that clever fake?


Fake or not, it's still been one of the longest-running gold standards in 'indecipherable', even if just to prove it doesn't say a damn thing.
 
2014-02-03 06:22:56 PM  

whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.


The big difference between a book and software is that you can measure the input and output of software at about any stage of the way from the carrier to the output device, and that the end result is understandable data. Be it text or a photograph or an animation. A pattern can be established by tweaking the input, reading the various stages, and comparing that with the output.

If we could get someone to read what the manuscript said aloud in a known language we'd have that cracked in no time.

Not an expert, but it seems logical to me that everything that produces an understandable output can be reverse engineered once you control the input.
 
2014-02-03 06:27:53 PM  

serial_crusher: Abner Doon: serial_crusher: More futuristically, it would allow people to create autonomous virtual agents that they could send out into the computing "cloud" to act on their behalf.

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]

It's cute when reporters say something incredibly stupid in the hopes of looking competent.

Why?  That's actually kind of a cool idea, if a bit fanciful at the moment.

Just the idea that you need magic in breakable crypto to accomplish something like that.
You're afraid your boss is going to download the program that you're using to send fake emails on your behalf and decrypt it to see that's what the program is doing? Sounds like he has to be mighty suspicious already to undertake something like that.


Ah, yes I see your point; yeah, probably not the best example.  The idea itself seems pretty interesting though, IMO.
 
2014-02-03 06:36:50 PM  

whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.


It's unreadable on purpose. It allowed a con artist to claim ancient or eastern wisdom that he couldn't be called on.
 
2014-02-03 07:09:26 PM  

whistleridge: dittybopper: whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.

You mean that clever fake?

Fake or not, it's still been one of the longest-running gold standards in 'indecipherable', even if just to prove it doesn't say a damn thing.


That's the thing: if it is fake, it may just not be decipherable simply because it's gibberish.
 
2014-02-03 07:28:58 PM  

wildcardjack: whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.

It's unreadable on purpose. It allowed a con artist to claim ancient or eastern wisdom that he couldn't be called on.


No, it's a REALLY early precursor to Dungeons & Dragons.

/Seriously!
//I heard it here on Fark!
 
2014-02-03 09:00:47 PM  

Thelyphthoric: wildcardjack: whistleridge: jso2897: Nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be 100% "unhackable".

There's a medieval manuscript that would like to have a word with you.

It's unreadable on purpose. It allowed a con artist to claim ancient or eastern wisdom that he couldn't be called on.

No, it's a REALLY early precursor to Dungeons & Dragons.

/Seriously!
//I heard it here on Fark!


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-02-03 10:16:16 PM  
Obfuscation is poor security. Large tangles just lead to better detanglers.
 
2014-02-04 03:25:40 AM  
If you think this will turn out to be practical and useful in the end, then buy Intel stock right now. Since it works by converting simple tasks into massively complicated programs, it will finally be the next answer to the recurring, vexing problem of "There's no real reason to replace your old computer with a new one, because there's nothing the new one can do that the old one fundamentally can't."
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report