Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is SETI a Security Risk?

Posted by Hemos on from the a-whole-new-level-of-paranoia dept.

Dotnaught writes "Richard Carrigan, a particle physicist at the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, fears the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) may be putting the earth at risk. As reported in the Guardian, Carrigan frets that alien radio signals could pose a security risk. The report cites a 2003 paper entitled "Do potential Seti signals need to be decontaminated?" but Carrigan's website has more details. Basically, he's calling for isolation of SETI computers and additional security measures. He writes, "To paraphrase Cocconi and Morrison for the possibility of a malevolent SETI signal ...the probability of a contaminated SETI signal is difficult to estimate; but if we never consider it the chance of infection is not zero."" Frankly, I'm more worried about some phishing malcontent then I am about the Grays, but maybe that's just me.

14 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. Chicken and Egg. by FalconZero · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    1. Raw signal in memory must bootstrap to status of operating program
    2. Program must then untangle the inner workings of the host. (Is it possible to now build a diagnosis program to determine the operating set of an unfamiliar computer?)
    I'm not a software engineer but... no, wait, I AM a software engineer, so I'm curious, how does this 'virus' execute step 1 [Buffer Overrun & Privilage Escalation] without doing step 2 first [Determine instruction set for system] (Which incidentally requires step one to have been performed first.)
    As far as I see it, theres as much chance of data in the recieve buffer created by background radiation being a viable 'virus' as there is a deliberate chunk of data will be

    This sounds suspiciously like :
    1) Send malicious code
    2) ...
    3) Infect universe (and profit)
    --
    Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
    1. Re:Chicken and Egg. by djmurdoch · · Score: 5, Informative

      The possibility that extraterrestrials will take over SETI is pretty remote, but SETI is still a security risk. In decreasing level of probability, I'd say the risks are:

        - someone could hack the server and send out malicious code with the next software update

        - someone could hack the data stream and inject malicious data into it (assuming there really is such a thing as malicious data, which I find hard to believe).

        - someone terrestrial could broadcast malicious data in such a way that the SETI telescopes pick it up and think that it's ET in origin.

        - an ET could broadcast malicious data, after having picked up a copy of the SETI software and analyzing it.

        - an ET could broadcast malicious data without knowing what the receiver is like (the worry describe in TFA).

    2. Re:Chicken and Egg. by a_nonamiss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're using the mindset that these ET's are of similar intelligience to humans. We tend to do that as a species. But imagine, if you will, a civilization that is only 2000+ years more advanced that us. And realistically, and civilization advanced enough to receive our radio waves and respond is likely greater than 2000 years more advanced than us. Consider how very short 2000 years is in a universal timescale. To this advanced civilization, our advanced code is nothing more than a toddler's plaything. We can't even begin to fathom the ways in which they could potentially expolit our security.

      It's like if the Romans built a huge wall and said "That will keep out anyone. It's not possible to breach it." Using our technology, which is 2000 years more advanced, (less, actually) we could fly an B2 bomber over the city and drop a couple 2000 pound bombs. The pinnalce of their most advanced security would last less than 10 seconds against the most basic of our assaults.

      I know this is a little different when talking about computer security, but just as the Romans couldn't even imagine in their wildest dreams a B2 bomber, let alone how it could possible get past their impenetrable wall, we can't conceive of the technology that could be used to "infect" our computers. In 2000 years, who knows what kind of power we would have to defeat such a system? We can't know because it's beyond even our wildest imagination.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    3. Re:Chicken and Egg. by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      we can't conceive of the technology that could be used to "infect" our computers.



      And that's the flaw in your B2-Bomber-argument. The aliens would be stuck with using our (extremely primitive) technology. We know pretty well how our computers work, and can figure out most ways to break/hack/crack them ourselves in a short timespan.



      It's a bit like using the tools and technologies the Romans had at that time and trying build that B2 bomber.

    4. Re:Chicken and Egg. by 6*7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's like if the Romans built a huge wall and said "That will keep out anyone. It's not possible to breach it." Using our technology, which is 2000 years more advanced, (less, actually) we could fly an B2 bomber over the city and drop a couple 2000 pound bombs."

      IIRC the Great Wall's effects expires with the discovery of metallurgy.

  2. They're thinking all wrong. by Phae · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've seen this movie, but it's the other way around. We're the ones that upload the virus to the aliens, not them to us... don't be silly.

  3. You can thank me for this information by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

    As official Earth contactee for the benevolent Betelgeuse civilization, I have been told to warn you that the evil Andromedans are using the SETI program to keep a fresh list of potential abductees for nefarious experiments.

    They also recently developped antitinfoil penetration technology, so those of you who are using this means of protection are now vulnerable.

    These beings will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of your colon!

    Consider yourselves warned.

  4. A classic example ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... of someone who's very knowledgeable in one technical field (in this case, particle physics) assuming that this knowledge carries over into another, almost unrelated technical field (in this case, computer science.) I'm sure that Dr. Carrigan is a very, very smart guy, but odds are he uses his computer as a tool without a whole lot more understanding of its inner workings than that possessed by the typical business user.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. Does this give new meaning to the phrase.... by isa-kuruption · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this give new meaning to the phrase: HACK THE PLANET ???

  6. An Open Letter by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Richard Carrigan,

    You keep doing particle Physics, and we'll keep doing Computer Science.

    Love,
    The Computer Scientists

  7. Movie-plot threat by Proaxiom · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A perfect example of what Schneier calls movie-plot security.

    It's pretty sad that they're actually wasting brain cycles thinking about threats like this. No, the risk of infection isn't zero. But it's damn close to zero. It isn't zero if you 'secure' SETI systems, either. It isn't even zero if you dismantle the SETI telescopes.

    But money spent on this is money better spent elsewhere, practically no matter where else you spend it. This should have been in the 'It's Funny, Laugh' topic.

    (Prediction: this will appear on Schneier's blog by end of day tomorrow)

  8. His worst fear has probably already happened by Aging_Newbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SETI data is pretty much indistinguishable from random numbers. In fact, the extremely rare patterned sequences of data are the holy grail of the pursuit.

    So .... most likely lots of virus code has already been processed because random noise will eventually produce every virus, just like monkeys and keyboards will produce Shakespeare. One could, I guess, hold the position that by processing random data we are putting ourselves at risk and that rings more true than some civilization producing intentional sequences with malicious intent.

  9. A far greater risk... by stox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is sending signals out. Although we may think we are saying hello, the receiver may be thinking, "Hmmm, I do need more meat in my diet."

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  10. ..and also psychic. by jferris · · Score: 5, Funny
    Assuming attacks on only 32 bit Windows OSes, if an attack would occur today, it could only have originated from within a range of ten light years. An attack from further out would have required that it be launched before Windows 95 was.

    There really is no need for remote infiltration of the OS, since high school students have been doing it for years. Why would first (acknowledged) contact be to give a virus to Windows users? It is like pouring salt in the ocean.

    --
    You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.