On Jan 28, 2008 6:33 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is undecidable whether a program satisfies the requirements of a formal > specification, which is the same as saying that it is undecidable whether two > programs are equivalent. The halting problem reduces to it.
Yes it is, if it's an arbitrary program. But you can construct a program that doesn't have this problem and also prove that it doesn't. You can check if program satisfies specification if it's written in a special way (for example, it's annotated with types that guarantee required conditions). > > Now THAT you can't oppose, competition for resources by deception that > > relies on human gullibility. But it's a completely different problem, > > it's not about computer security at all. It's about human phychology, > > and one can't do anything about it, as long as they remain human. It > > probably can be kind of solved by placing generally intelligent > > 'personal firewalls' on all input that human receives. > > The problem is not human gullibility but human cognitive limits in dealing > with computer complexity. The same thing, but gullibility is there too, and is a problem. > Twenty years ago ID theft, phishing, botnets, and > spyware were barely a problem. This problem will only get worse as software > gets more complex. What you are suggesting is to abdicate responsibility to > the software, pitting ever smarter security against ever smarter intruders. > This only guarantees that when your computer is hacked, you will never know. > But I fear this result is inevitable. If computer cannot be hacked, it won't be. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=90586814-8bc9a2
