Date sent: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:24:16 +0100 From: "r.b." <[email protected]>
> This makes great copy but it doesn't sound like they've heard about, > or bothered to take into consideration: > > JITs > Automated code generation > Optimizers Having dealt with linguistic forensics for decades, I can assure you that it is possible to identify authors and sources despite editors, publishers, and even mangling from electronic communications systems. There are a huge number of characteristics that can be used to identify people: my wife (who used to be a secretary) even found characteristics "line lengths" in stuff people wrote. When I got into software forensics, I found a wealth of identifiers there, too. Yes, the utilities and tools muddy some issues, but they turn out to create identifiers themselves, and the specific utilities and options used are also identifiers. > Or a slipperier issue: > > Just because someone wrote the code doesn't mean they launched the attack. True. That's what court cases are for. > This idea has been hyped before without result. I don't expect that to > change any time soon. Unfortunately, probably correct. There is a great deal of research out there, and wonderful stuff it is. But it does require testing and verification, and some money to put it all together. Empire building, political infighting, and corporate marketing of inferior products/services will doubtless ensure that it never gets used properly. ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. - Jay Leno victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ http://twitter.com/NoticeBored http://twitter.com/rslade _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
