Your nasty few words nicely display why half the world hates Americans - you are saying that soldiers can kill criminals just like the KGB eliminated their (real or perceived) opponents.
..cyberweapons are banking on the incompetence of the victim. Because that works most of the time and on the interesting targets, that is Good Enough. Stuxnet only succeeded because the Iranians were more or less completely incompetent. A Belarus company (!) had to do it for them. Belarus is a little tyranny with little resources, except brains left from the soviet union. Much larger Iran could not do it because their software engineers are so bad.
..smart cyber weapons could be inserted by a microwave transmitter into the target's signal processing software and from there fsck with some critical data displayed to humans.
Or, inject a virus directly into a sigint system, because by definition that system is listening promiscuously for other people's data streams.
Inject malware by a laser triggering some sensor's automatic gain control rapidly, triggering a buffer overflow.
Basically, the sky is the limit when it comes to hacking modern weaponry, as the latter cannot work without software, FPGAs, ASICs and so on. Electronic warfare has been going on since the 1930s and malware is just the logical extension of all this. The fine points of whether malware is the same as jamming are pointless when you can achieve the same effects with malware as with "real electromagnetic power in the air".
Stuxnet ? Flame ? Taking out your opponents computers means taking out their weapons, if they have anything smarter than an AK47. Even modern handheld radios now contain lots of sw.
They surely can burn through billions every year and deliver some nice powerpoint slides and heaps of useless prototypes and unworkable specification documents in no time. Actually, it would hurt business to attack the problem at the root. Instead, created hugely expensive and complicated band-aids while knowing that Microsoft. Oracle and Adobe are a fountain of security holes which will flow forever. That means selling band-aids forever !
The first step to defend systems is to know all the types of defensive armor. Here is a list of what I consider useful:
Formal Verification. Proof your code correct. Works on small pieces of code
Sandboxing. Google Chrome is doing it conceptually very well and could be applied to many more systems
Behavioural Analysis at network chokepoints such as firewalls and fileservers. Malware will be challenged to make its extraction and C&C traffic look like legitimate traffic. Requires competent analysts who actually parse logfiles instead of playing WoW. Must also be capable to write their own Perl analysis programs.
Type-Safe Programming Languages. Conceptual examples are Java,.net, some Ada variants and a language called Sappeur which I created myself.
Appstores with known code authors. Google's Android appstore does not qualify
Linux already contains all the infrastructure. It is being used by AppArmor, but you can of course use wholly different concepts, or you could fork AppArmor. I guess a playing with AppArmor source code would be a good starting point.
And surely America invented everything from the Diesel engine to Ballistic missiles ? Keep eating your oily shit and continue to live in Hillbilly county. Don't join the army, because that why your ignorance might be reduced by you being shipped to a place were men do not mate with their nieces.
A rational assessment of innovation in computer and software tech will show everybody who is interested that Norway (with their 5 million people) is doing more software innovations than India and China taken together. "Rich" countries actually have done lots and lots of systematic and basic security research (think of kernels with 100% correctness proofs, SE Linux, Sandboxie, AppArmor, type safe programming languages, 100% correctness proofs of compilers). The Computer Science Intelligentsia knows how to make very secure systems - it is just the Computer Science Whores (those whose first priority is DOLLARS) who constantly deliver insecure crap.
The world (including the rich world) could move to BSD-Jailed Abiword word processors in no time (if someone pwns Office thoroughly), if we simply moved our lazy, fat asses. The pain is not hard enough to leave the soap opera and stop eating fat, unhealthy chips. We are so rich we simply don't care about these issues at the moment. The others are poor and don't care either. Nor do they even theoretically know how to do strong computer security. We know, but we are still too lazy to yank Windows+Office+Adobe into the trashcan.
"Cyber Attacks cannot be controlled once released"
Just because there exists malware which will attack anything it is compatible to, does not mean much. You could very well write malware which would attack only computers with a very small set of IP addresses, with a very specific config, in a very specific subnet or DNS domain. Your argument is the same as the pope lamenting the use of longbows. "distance weapons are dehumanizing like nothing before. The bad guy with the horns on the head must have created them. They are not haram".
..would surely be proud of that Great American Company "Microsoft". They use all the old dirty tricks and invented some more. In that process they made themselves some very powerful enemies, as words are more powerful than dollar bills on the long run.
Surely all the PHB drones will be interested, as they are fascinated by.Net and the other polished turd from M$. They grew their careers on polished PPT crap.
..Windows is in all other aspects RetardWare. Slow networking, Buggy SMB (still with Win7), in-transparent config (that registry crap-pile), MFC, slow to launch/stop processes, lots of security issues.
It is only advocated by people who are too lazy to learn Unix.
..that is what the average MBA-retard will look at. Then they will conclude that the largest market for programmers is people capable of Java,.Net and C++. That's the killer argument for them. Technical and economic merits ? They don't understand and they do not want to be enlightened.
The western world has been brought into the crapper by this "management talent" who don't have a proper education and no inclination to dive into something intellectually challenging. Meanwhile China is run mainly by engineers and their success relative to the MBA crappers speaks volumes.
If you really know perl, you will be quite monogamous. I had relationships with Smalltalk, Pascal, Python, Java but I don't miss them. My employer pays me to fuck with C++ and to prostitute myself to C#, but I am not in love with them. Perl is always there and will reliably and quickly to the little jobs I need to do - just for a hug.
I find it is a well-thought out language and those who bitch about syntax, implicit variables and write-only programs are actually ridiculing themselves.
A competent software engineer will use proper variables (instead of the implicit ones) and will absolutely not be offended by a particular syntax. I find Perl is extremely well-done and I can (somehow) love it. That is something I would never say about Java, because I have used some many crap implementations (J2ME phones) and have seen so many changes and have waited so many hours for a Java app server to just start up.
With perl, the edit/debug cycle is measured in seconds, while in Java and C++ it is normally minutes if not dozens of minutes. All the IDE I need is vi or notepad++. Lightweight, powerful, correctly implemented. The world will be a worse place when Larry Wall fades away !
I have created a programming language myself, with the aim of
A) having the same safety assurances as managed langiages (Java, C#, Perl etc)
B) being (nearly) as efficient as C++ in terms of memory and runtime
C) being as realtime-capable as C++ or Ada (no random GC runs)
D) having highly useful C++ concepts such as Destructors
E) having support for multithreaded computing in the type system
Here is it: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sappeurcompiler/
I am an individual developer and my marketing/propaganda means boil down to being able to write comments on sites like this. Of course I tried to drum up my language by pointing out all the advantages (see above). I tried to explain people why Java is unnecessarily inefficient, why C++ is a security risk.
What I got in response was only about two guys even using the compiler for a few minutes. Most replies to my arguments would be either ridiculing syntax, ridiculing the name or saying that their main language was already perfect. Pretty much the same in the real world, just less ridiculing. I got the impression that most programmers are either intellectually lazy and challenged to analyse new concepts or they are lazy in the sense that they do not want to learn any new language in addition to their main one. They go great lengths to defend Java/C++/PHP/C# or whatever their mainly used language is. That is to some degree rational, as learning a new language is a huge investment (time spent learning is an opportunity cost).
Still, I find it irrational to refuse even the consideration of making a change. I find it irrational to use some tool just because many other people use it and because a big corpo (MS, SUN) is pushing it. It has now become very clear that Java is far from ideal and all the supposed benefits are mainly theoretical. In reality, Java is insecure, bloated, kills user experience with random freezes (for GC) and the VMs on mobile phones are utter alpha-grade crap. Similar things could be said about C#, but it is hugely successful because of MS pushing it.
From a simpleton perspective (such as MBA-style reasoning), a popular language might be a rational choice, especially when you factor in employability, but from the perspective of creating excellent products and achieving best developer efficiency, they are not. Objective C was a fringe language until Apple sold their excellent quality product in the millions. Delphi/object Pascal is a fringe language because the maker cannot subsidize their IDE, but those who are in the know recognize it as efficient in terms of developer time and in terms of runtime. Delphi programs also don't freeze because of GC.
So the conclusion is - most programmers have the same mindset as the ladies in the vertical business - "whatever makes a quick buck is a good thing".
Slashdot Mirror
Your nasty few words nicely display why half the world hates Americans - you are saying that soldiers can kill criminals just like the KGB eliminated their (real or perceived) opponents.
..cyberweapons are banking on the incompetence of the victim. Because that works most of the time and on the interesting targets, that is Good Enough. Stuxnet only succeeded because the Iranians were more or less completely incompetent. A Belarus company (!) had to do it for them. Belarus is a little tyranny with little resources, except brains left from the soviet union. Much larger Iran could not do it because their software engineers are so bad.
..smart cyber weapons could be inserted by a microwave transmitter into the target's signal processing software and from there fsck with some critical data displayed to humans.
Or, inject a virus directly into a sigint system, because by definition that system is listening promiscuously for other people's data streams.
Inject malware by a laser triggering some sensor's automatic gain control rapidly, triggering a buffer overflow.
Basically, the sky is the limit when it comes to hacking modern weaponry, as the latter cannot work without software, FPGAs, ASICs and so on. Electronic warfare has been going on since the 1930s and malware is just the logical extension of all this. The fine points of whether malware is the same as jamming are pointless when you can achieve the same effects with malware as with "real electromagnetic power in the air".
Stuxnet ? Flame ? Taking out your opponents computers means taking out their weapons, if they have anything smarter than an AK47. Even modern handheld radios now contain lots of sw.
They surely can burn through billions every year and deliver some nice powerpoint slides and heaps of useless prototypes and unworkable specification documents in no time. Actually, it would hurt business to attack the problem at the root. Instead, created hugely expensive and complicated band-aids while knowing that Microsoft. Oracle and Adobe are a fountain of security holes which will flow forever. That means selling band-aids forever !
Name is "Linux Security Modules".
Formal Verification. Proof your code correct. Works on small pieces of code
Sandboxing. Google Chrome is doing it conceptually very well and could be applied to many more systems
Behavioural Analysis at network chokepoints such as firewalls and fileservers. Malware will be challenged to make its extraction and C&C traffic look like legitimate traffic. Requires competent analysts who actually parse logfiles instead of playing WoW. Must also be capable to write their own Perl analysis programs.
Type-Safe Programming Languages. Conceptual examples are Java, .net, some Ada variants and a language called Sappeur which I created myself.
Appstores with known code authors. Google's Android appstore does not qualify
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_safety http://sourceforge.net/projects/sappeurcompiler/
Linux already contains all the infrastructure. It is being used by AppArmor, but you can of course use wholly different concepts, or you could fork AppArmor. I guess a playing with AppArmor source code would be a good starting point.
And surely America invented everything from the Diesel engine to Ballistic missiles ? Keep eating your oily shit and continue to live in Hillbilly county. Don't join the army, because that why your ignorance might be reduced by you being shipped to a place were men do not mate with their nieces.
A rational assessment of innovation in computer and software tech will show everybody who is interested that Norway (with their 5 million people) is doing more software innovations than India and China taken together. "Rich" countries actually have done lots and lots of systematic and basic security research (think of kernels with 100% correctness proofs, SE Linux, Sandboxie, AppArmor, type safe programming languages, 100% correctness proofs of compilers). The Computer Science Intelligentsia knows how to make very secure systems - it is just the Computer Science Whores (those whose first priority is DOLLARS) who constantly deliver insecure crap.
The world (including the rich world) could move to BSD-Jailed Abiword word processors in no time (if someone pwns Office thoroughly), if we simply moved our lazy, fat asses. The pain is not hard enough to leave the soap opera and stop eating fat, unhealthy chips. We are so rich we simply don't care about these issues at the moment. The others are poor and don't care either. Nor do they even theoretically know how to do strong computer security. We know, but we are still too lazy to yank Windows+Office+Adobe into the trashcan.
Already, dozens of millions of Windows machines are pwned. Because Windows is insecure by design (or lack of thereof).
"Cyber Attacks cannot be controlled once released"
Just because there exists malware which will attack anything it is compatible to, does not mean much. You could very well write malware which would attack only computers with a very small set of IP addresses, with a very specific config, in a very specific subnet or DNS domain. Your argument is the same as the pope lamenting the use of longbows. "distance weapons are dehumanizing like nothing before. The bad guy with the horns on the head must have created them. They are not haram".
.. a Cyber Gap ?
..would surely be proud of that Great American Company "Microsoft". They use all the old dirty tricks and invented some more. In that process they made themselves some very powerful enemies, as words are more powerful than dollar bills on the long run.
Surely all the PHB drones will be interested, as they are fascinated by .Net and the other polished turd from M$. They grew their careers on polished PPT crap.
..Windows is in all other aspects RetardWare. Slow networking, Buggy SMB (still with Win7), in-transparent config (that registry crap-pile), MFC, slow to launch/stop processes, lots of security issues.
It is only advocated by people who are too lazy to learn Unix.
..why is Oracle still in business ? Is it sadomasochism on the part of his victims ? Would be a nice explanation - sado-maso is real biz.
..that is what the average MBA-retard will look at. Then they will conclude that the largest market for programmers is people capable of Java, .Net and C++. That's the killer argument for them. Technical and economic merits ? They don't understand and they do not want to be enlightened.
The western world has been brought into the crapper by this "management talent" who don't have a proper education and no inclination to dive into something intellectually challenging. Meanwhile China is run mainly by engineers and their success relative to the MBA crappers speaks volumes.
..will spend hours to solve insane problems of a machine. Girl's don't cut it.
If you really know perl, you will be quite monogamous. I had relationships with Smalltalk, Pascal, Python, Java but I don't miss them. My employer pays me to fuck with C++ and to prostitute myself to C#, but I am not in love with them. Perl is always there and will reliably and quickly to the little jobs I need to do - just for a hug.
I find it is a well-thought out language and those who bitch about syntax, implicit variables and write-only programs are actually ridiculing themselves.
A competent software engineer will use proper variables (instead of the implicit ones) and will absolutely not be offended by a particular syntax. I find Perl is extremely well-done and I can (somehow) love it. That is something I would never say about Java, because I have used some many crap implementations (J2ME phones) and have seen so many changes and have waited so many hours for a Java app server to just start up.
With perl, the edit/debug cycle is measured in seconds, while in Java and C++ it is normally minutes if not dozens of minutes. All the IDE I need is vi or notepad++. Lightweight, powerful, correctly implemented. The world will be a worse place when Larry Wall fades away !
I have created a programming language myself, with the aim of
A) having the same safety assurances as managed langiages (Java, C#, Perl etc)
B) being (nearly) as efficient as C++ in terms of memory and runtime
C) being as realtime-capable as C++ or Ada (no random GC runs)
D) having highly useful C++ concepts such as Destructors
E) having support for multithreaded computing in the type system
Here is it: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sappeurcompiler/
I am an individual developer and my marketing/propaganda means boil down to being able to write comments on sites like this. Of course I tried to drum up my language by pointing out all the advantages (see above). I tried to explain people why Java is unnecessarily inefficient, why C++ is a security risk.
What I got in response was only about two guys even using the compiler for a few minutes. Most replies to my arguments would be either ridiculing syntax, ridiculing the name or saying that their main language was already perfect. Pretty much the same in the real world, just less ridiculing. I got the impression that most programmers are either intellectually lazy and challenged to analyse new concepts or they are lazy in the sense that they do not want to learn any new language in addition to their main one. They go great lengths to defend Java/C++/PHP/C# or whatever their mainly used language is. That is to some degree rational, as learning a new language is a huge investment (time spent learning is an opportunity cost).
Still, I find it irrational to refuse even the consideration of making a change. I find it irrational to use some tool just because many other people use it and because a big corpo (MS, SUN) is pushing it. It has now become very clear that Java is far from ideal and all the supposed benefits are mainly theoretical. In reality, Java is insecure, bloated, kills user experience with random freezes (for GC) and the VMs on mobile phones are utter alpha-grade crap. Similar things could be said about C#, but it is hugely successful because of MS pushing it.
From a simpleton perspective (such as MBA-style reasoning), a popular language might be a rational choice, especially when you factor in employability, but from the perspective of creating excellent products and achieving best developer efficiency, they are not. Objective C was a fringe language until Apple sold their excellent quality product in the millions. Delphi/object Pascal is a fringe language because the maker cannot subsidize their IDE, but those who are in the know recognize it as efficient in terms of developer time and in terms of runtime. Delphi programs also don't freeze because of GC.
So the conclusion is - most programmers have the same mindset as the ladies in the vertical business - "whatever makes a quick buck is a good thing".