Does this seem very impractical to anyone else? Maybe I am on the wrong track, but I don't see how hiding a message in a DNA sequence is at all ahead of hiding a message in, say, a stream of random data, or in a Quicktime video, or a bitmap, or anything else. It would be just as secure cryptographically speaking, but wouldn't require big/heavy/unusual/expensive equipment to decrypt. In some ways, raising the bar required for anyone to even start decrypting might be useful, but it seems that the problems inherent in any non-transmittable medium by far outweigh the benefeits when the encryption methods we have now (by all evidence) provide an equal level of security?
Hang on, I'm sure that many people are overreacting. A few things to keep in mind:
1. The fact that they can even organize a list of 63,000 bugs is a testiment to the planning and foresight at Microsoft. God knows I could never manage it.
2. "No software in the history of Microsoft development has ever been through the incredible, rigourous external and internal testing that Windows 2000 has been through." You hear that! Both internal and external testing! Has such a thing even been done before?
3. 63,000 lines of code. Sure, it sounds like a lot. But just think: at around 60 million lines of code, that works out to one bug in every thousand lines of code! Why that means there is only a 0.1% chance of an error!
(Steps aside to allow next volley of silly Microsoft jokes to pass.) KeyLargo
Perhaps this is the NSA starting in a new direction. Despite all the X-Files I watch, I have to believe that the NSA is working in the best interests of the American people. For a long time that ment monitering for say, suspicous bhabviour. ie. terrorist activities. Maybe with crytography the way it is, that is too difficuly and no longer their primary focus. Could they instead be working to safeguard American businesses by making sure that faulty standards are not being used?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this seem very impractical to anyone else? Maybe I am on the wrong track, but I don't see how hiding a message in a DNA sequence is at all ahead of hiding a message in, say, a stream of random data, or in a Quicktime video, or a bitmap, or anything else. It would be just as secure cryptographically speaking, but wouldn't require big/heavy/unusual/expensive equipment to decrypt. In some ways, raising the bar required for anyone to even start decrypting might be useful, but it seems that the problems inherent in any non-transmittable medium by far outweigh the benefeits when the encryption methods we have now (by all evidence) provide an equal level of security?
Can anyone see a practical use to this procedure?
1. The fact that they can even organize a list of 63,000 bugs is a testiment to the planning and foresight at Microsoft. God knows I could never manage it.
2. "No software in the history of Microsoft development has ever been through the incredible, rigourous external and internal testing that Windows 2000 has been through." You hear that! Both internal and external testing! Has such a thing even been done before?
3. 63,000 lines of code. Sure, it sounds like a lot. But just think: at around 60 million lines of code, that works out to one bug in every thousand lines of code! Why that means there is only a 0.1% chance of an error!
(Steps aside to allow next volley of silly Microsoft jokes to pass.)
KeyLargo
Perhaps this is the NSA starting in a new direction. Despite all the X-Files I watch, I have to believe that the NSA is working in the best interests of the American people. For a long time that ment monitering for say, suspicous bhabviour. ie. terrorist activities. Maybe with crytography the way it is, that is too difficuly and no longer their primary focus. Could they instead be working to safeguard American businesses by making sure that faulty standards are not being used?
Just a thought.
Regards,
KeyLargo.