Re: [math-fun] obfuscated programs, moron detection interlude
Doesn't the net program (WI+its input) at seem pretty darn obfuscated to you?
Whatever program would decrypt and run the obfuscated code would be hacked, and a separate program could be written to decrypt and publish the code. This kind of thing is done all the time to protect sensitive content. It does make the process of hacking it harder.
If you want to see some amazing hacking, watch these (and many other) videos (in English) from the December 2013 30c3 conference in Germany. As the obfuscation paper pointed out, current types of obfuscation are merely "speed bumps", as these videos prove. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1CqQK_beU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwKeVF-x3Og At 03:21 PM 2/4/2014, Dave Dyer wrote:
This kind of thing is done all the time to protect sensitive content. It does make the process of hacking it harder.
Most intriguing notion of "homomorphic encryption", of which I knew not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption But I'm unconvinced about some the claims apparently being made for it. For example, if I encrypt a large integer and send it off to an insecure factorising server, am I going to receive in return its encrypted factorisation, despite the server being unable to decrypt the input? Hmm ... WFL On 2/4/14, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
If you want to see some amazing hacking, watch these (and many other) videos (in English) from the December 2013 30c3 conference in Germany. As the obfuscation paper pointed out, current types of obfuscation are merely "speed bumps", as these videos prove.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1CqQK_beU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwKeVF-x3Og
At 03:21 PM 2/4/2014, Dave Dyer wrote:
This kind of thing is done all the time to protect sensitive content. It does make the process of hacking it harder.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
As I understand it, yes -- that's the whole point. Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
Most intriguing notion of "homomorphic encryption", of which I knew not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption
But I'm unconvinced about some the claims apparently being made for it. For example, if I encrypt a large integer and send it off to an insecure factorising server, am I going to receive in return its encrypted factorisation, despite the server being unable to decrypt the input? Hmm ...
WFL
On 2/4/14, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
If you want to see some amazing hacking, watch these (and many other) videos (in English) from the December 2013 30c3 conference in Germany. As the obfuscation paper pointed out, current types of obfuscation are merely "speed bumps", as these videos prove.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1CqQK_beU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwKeVF-x3Og
At 03:21 PM 2/4/2014, Dave Dyer wrote:
This kind of thing is done all the time to protect sensitive content. It does make the process of hacking it harder.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (4)
-
Charles Greathouse -
Dave Dyer -
Fred Lunnon -
Henry Baker