From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 07:40:14 MST
On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 03:17 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Gordon Worley wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 01:43 AM, Mitch Howe wrote:
>>> What I'm wondering is if anyone has any ideas about how a Sysop might
>>> be supremely well protected from hacking. My background isn't
>>> technical enough to give any real-life examples besides "physical
>>> separation" Could something as upiquitous as a Sysop realistically do
>> First off, it would be a major violation of volition to hack the Sysop.
>> The Sysop will most likely not want to be hacked, therefore ve cannot
>> hacked. But, that doesn't mean an attack couldn't still be tried.
> Mm, that sounds like circular logic to me. The Sysop is what supposedly
Yes, I should have made it more clear. I am suggesting that the Sysop
is a tautology, but this makes sense and isn't really bad since, if the
Sysop is basically making it impossible to violate someone's volition
(or whatever), then ve is setting up a system where ve is always
unhackable. In short, the Sysop sets the rules, so it's very easy to
make sure that not being hacked is in those rules.
But, as I mentioned, just because that's how it works in theory doesn't
means that attacks are impossible. In particular, the attacker would
try a hack that is in some way outside the system of the Sysop's hack
detection system, because otherwise it will be recognized and prevented.
Then again, maybe all that homework in my logic class has thrown my mind
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose email@example.com it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT