Because we build things the wrong way.

"We take code and make it secure"

instead of

"We take secure and make it code".

That said, maybe it's impossible. Maybe turing completeness and security are antithetical and someone will always be able to find a way to poke a hole in the system from a lower layer of reality.

▲

red75prime 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Provably correct programs verified for the hardware they are running on are possible (seL4 is one of a few examples). Their development is very time consuming though. There are caveats, but it's possible, in principle, to fully block certain attack vectors (for example, network access). The attackers then should go a more expensive and dangerous human manipulation or physical access route.

ASI (artificial superintelligence), theoretically, can exploit the ultimate analog nature of digital circuits (something like Plundervolt, but more intricate), but if we'd get to this stage when we need to defend against ASI, we'd have bigger problems.

	▲	pixl97 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>can exploit the ultimate analog nature of digital circuits I was just giving a very similar reply here on this article. One of the interesting things science has showed is that 'human' scale is nothing special at all. All kind of complexity exists at scales larger and smaller than us. Up to the point that "humans" are just an emergent phenomenon of a bunch of little tiny things working together. Entire worlds exist beyond our human senses. And that has me a little bit concerned about the speed at which we're flinging ourselves into the future. I'd rather not invent something and go "oops, no takesies backsies" and do something like kill all security in digital computing and watch the world become completely unhinged.

▲

Kevin_Flynn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"We take secure and make it code".

Yeah, that. Manual controls w/ an optional automation, not just, automation with an optional "oh shit" button.

As for the AI's hacking and patching, one could reason since we are dealing with Turing machines that as long as changes to any given codebase/version cease, then all possible holes and patches would be found given enough attacks for that specific release.

Perhaps unfolding almost exactly like Conways 'Game of Life' with an order or two magnitude more rules and states, where the end pattern for any release is 'stability.'

We need a realtime dashboard for this :D

	▲	Kevin_Flynn 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

paganel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> we take secure and make it code

That’s how we got to abominations like two MFA operations in order to login to a basic web interface/web product, no-one sane would have ever paid for that originally.

	▲	pixl97 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No. That is not what I'm talking about, that is a completely different subject in the topic of security. The problem of identity, which is close to unsolvable itself. I'm talking about problems at the algorithmic level.