Remember me
▼ Content

Quantum Supremacy achieved by Sycamore Googles Quantum Computer



Page 3 of 3<123
13-10-2022 22:44
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Nope, as I already know that everything it posts is BS,

OK, OK ... I won't give you any BS. I just want to learn how I can teach my children to discern the entangled photons from the non-entangled photons. I'm turning to you to explain the basics to me.


The children of downs syndrome patients like you ...

I presume that Down syndrome patients would identify the entangled photons in the same way as everyone else.

What identifies an entangled photon vs. a non-entangled photon?

See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

.


See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-10-2022 01:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?



Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?
14-10-2022 03:26
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?



Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?


Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed because either we do it first or they do it first and losing this race is just not an option. Not that you can comprehend


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-10-2022 04:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

The fictional fantasy in your mind is not only not guaranteed, nobody will be doing it "first." It's not a thing. You shouldn't be so gullible ... but, of course, you can if you wish.

Modern cryptography is based on mathematics, specifically group theory. Previously, cryptography was mostly based on the difficulty of factoring products of HUGE prime numbers. While this is still used, elliptic curve cryptography is far more secure. It's not unbreakable but it gets very close with even relatively small keys.

The point is that cryptography is not based on the physical size of any bits. That is totally irrelevant.


Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!


.
14-10-2022 13:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

The fictional fantasy in your mind is not only not guaranteed, nobody will be doing it "first." It's not a thing. You shouldn't be so gullible ... but, of course, you can if you wish.

Modern cryptography is based on mathematics, specifically group theory. Previously, cryptography was mostly based on the difficulty of factoring products of HUGE prime numbers. While this is still used, elliptic curve cryptography is far more secure. It's not unbreakable but it gets very close with even relatively small keys.

The point is that cryptography is not based on the physical size of any bits. That is totally irrelevant.


Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!


.


Says the hillbilly who claims that there was no ice age, that there are no magnets in tokomaks, that the holocaust never happened, and now it claims that there is no such thing as a qubit in a quantum computer. It must be fun playing with Lego blocks and silly putty all day.

LOL did you always want to be a communist working for dimocraps?


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-10-2022 20:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:[quote]Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

Says the hillbilly who claims that France had mathematicians. Next you'll be saying that magnets don't contain fusion reactors! ... or that the holocaust had survivors, and that the ark's window was only one cubit square!

I'm currently researching whether the ark was pushed by a glacier as well as looking into what type of investment roulette falls.
14-10-2022 23:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Nope, as I already know that everything it posts is BS,

OK, OK ... I won't give you any BS. I just want to learn how I can teach my children to discern the entangled photons from the non-entangled photons. I'm turning to you to explain the basics to me.


The children of downs syndrome patients like you ...

I presume that Down syndrome patients would identify the entangled photons in the same way as everyone else.

What identifies an entangled photon vs. a non-entangled photon?

See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

.


See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

It is not possible to measure the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light. Science isn't religion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 14-10-2022 23:57
14-10-2022 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?



Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?


Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed because either we do it first or they do it first and losing this race is just not an option. Not that you can comprehend

There is no such thing as 'quantum cryptography'. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-10-2022 00:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed

The fictional fantasy in your mind is not only not guaranteed, nobody will be doing it "first." It's not a thing. You shouldn't be so gullible ... but, of course, you can if you wish.

Modern cryptography is based on mathematics, specifically group theory. Previously, cryptography was mostly based on the difficulty of factoring products of HUGE prime numbers. While this is still used, elliptic curve cryptography is far more secure. It's not unbreakable but it gets very close with even relatively small keys.

The point is that cryptography is not based on the physical size of any bits. That is totally irrelevant.


Point of Trivia: French mathematician Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 - 12 January 1665) claimed to have proved an amazing theorem. For integers A, B and C: A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n. You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem whereby A^2 + B^2 = C^2 ... but Fermat stated that if you change the exponent to 3 or to 4 or to any other integer greater than 2, there cannot be any solution. In English, a cube cannot be the sum of two cubes, a fourth-power number cannot be the sum of two fourth power numbers, etc...

The only thing missing ... was the amazing proof that he claimed to have had. Centuries passed and nobody could verify Fermat's proof one way or the other. The best mathematicians tried and the theorem remained unproven. I believe every university had a standing offer of a PhD for anyone wishing to make that proof his thesis. With the advent of computers, all the exponents were checked up well into the tens of millions for all possible combinations well into the tens of millions ... and no solution was discovered to prove the theorem false. Yet no one could prove the theorem true either.

Finally, in 1995, using a newly developed branch of mathematics, i.e. elliptic curves, the theorem was proved. Of course, Fermat did not have the benefit of Elliptic Curve mathematics. No one knows what he was thinking back in the 1600s ...

... except for me. Fermat *knew* that greenhouse gases cause the earth's temperature to spontaneously increase, and he used biogeochemistricycles along with basic common sense to show what is patently obvious, i.e. Global Warming and A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n ... Duh!


.


Says the hillbilly who claims that there was no ice age,

He never did. Word stuffing. You are just pushing your religion.
Swan wrote:
that there are no magnets in tokomaks,

He never did. Word stuffing.
Swan wrote:
that the holocaust never happened,

He never did. Word stuffing. You are just pushing your religoin.
Swan wrote:
and now it claims that there is no such thing as a qubit

There isn't.
Swan wrote:
in a quantum computer.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacies.
Swan wrote:
It must be fun playing with Lego blocks and silly putty all day.

Some people make very good money playing with Lego blocks all day. Silly Putty has also made a LOT of money, both for the inventor and for Crayola after it bought the product from the inventor. NASA used Silly Putty on Apollo 8 to hold down tools. Turns out it's great for things like that.

Apparently you can't have fun. I have a lot of fun at my work, making instrumentation. My company sells these things worldwide.

Swan wrote:
LOL did you always want to be a communist working for dimocraps?

He is not a communist nor a socialist. Neither am I. Hallucination.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-10-2022 06:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:See link, and no downs syndrome people like you and your mother do not see the world as do other people.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement

So this is all that is needed to get you to bend over furniture and drop your pants?



Wow! You're just looking for someone to OBEY, aren't you? Weren't you mocking Spongy Iris for this exact same thing (just over a different image)? If Spongy Iris had used this image instead, would you have gone along with his glass-enclosed earth theory?


Actually quantum cryptography is guaranteed because either we do it first or they do it first and losing this race is just not an option. Not that you can comprehend


Doesn't matter what cryptography scheme is used, or how powerful the computer. They will all fail, for the same reason, humans. Some human will always poses the key, or access. Humans are always going to be the weak link, cryptography is a tool used by humans. The need for a more powerful computer, is the intent to break another's cryptography scheme, sort of illegal for most of us. Little unethical for the government. Typical democrat mindset of paranoia, and panic spending. Democrats doing bad things, so everybody else must be doing the same thing, and wasting billions of dollars in the process. If they were even remotely concerned about national security, they would be making it public. It's democrat hype, hysteria, and a money grab. Doesn't matter if there is anything actually there to get in a panic over.

The 'classified' documents allegedly seize for Trump, should be a good indicator just how concerned democrats were about national security. Wouldn't matter who took the materials out of the secure setting, they shouldn't have waited over a year to take action. Personally doubt Trump had anything of consequence, just maybe a little embarrassing for the democrat party, and likely not as classified, as implied. But, that's what security is, humans will always defeat the most secure...
15-10-2022 07:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
HarveyH55 wrote:Doesn't matter what cryptography scheme is used, or how powerful the computer. They will all fail, for the same reason, humans. Some human will always poses the key, or access. Humans are always going to be the weak link, cryptography is a tool used by humans.

Harvey, I have good news for you. There are two things that will remedy this:

1. Zero Trust (ZT) Architecture in combination with Least Permissions. Eventually, all systems and networks will employ ZT to eliminate the possibility of one human gaining the authorizations of another, or from hacking in with a process ID that has the authorizations of another.

2. Elliptic Curve asynchronous encryption, once normalized with larger keys, will create encryption that, albeit breakable, will require thousands of years to crack given buildings full of interconnected, advanced, futuristic computers. And if anyone should get your token, they'll only be able to decrypt your messages and no one else's ... and they won't be able to authenticate as you or acquire your authorizations.

Of course, a little more time will be needed to allow both to mature, but they are at least already here.
.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2022 22:05
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.
16-10-2022 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-10-2022 19:26
16-10-2022 20:38
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.


I may have over simplified, but there has always got to be a means to recover the encrypted information. Encryption is like a lock, meant to prevent unauthorized humans from accessing. Locks only keep honest humans out. Cryptography is basically useless, if the encrypted data is frequently lost, do to human error, hardware fail, lost connections. Nothing works flawlessly, 24/7, forever. Sure, we could rely on backup copies, only losing the most recent data. Not ideal at all in some businesses.
16-10-2022 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.

I wasn't confusing anything. Harvey had raised a good point about humans being the weak link in the security chain. I was giving him good news that new paradigms are being developed to ameliorate that weak link by removing, and in some cases, prohibiting, human involvement.

Passwords never enter the discussion. Passwords are effectively eliminated in favor of security best practices.

The elliptic curve asymmetric cryptography addresses the CIA (Confidentiality-Integrity-Availability) triad and makes it virtually impossible for it to be broken by human actors.

The Zero Trust (ZT) Framework implementing Least Privilege (typically through ABAC or RBAC) addresses the authorizations of any process ID throughout the system/network, preventing even humans who are authorized on the system/network from being able to perform undesirable actions, and that includes actions performed through other system/network machines/components that have their own authorizations. ZT prevents hackers from gaining control of a trusted system component and then using that component's authorizations to perform actions. One principle of ZT is granular network segmentation that limits the authorizations of any components to the authorizations of the calling process ID. If a person whose account has limited authorizations nonetheless gains control over a component with increased authorizations, the component's authorizations will be reduced; the calling process ID will not inherit additional authorizations. Implicit in this paradigm is the elimination of anyone "gaining root access." Someone can still try, but success will only result in that root process ID losing root privileges.

That's all. Humans are being "dealt with."
16-10-2022 21:30
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
It's still a tool, and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs. Humans decide what needs to be encrypted. Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...
16-10-2022 22:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
HarveyH55 wrote:It's still a tool,

It's not so much a tool as it is an architecture framework. It's a way of thinking about systems that eliminates inherent trust. When you say that humans are the weak link, that's only partially true. Security breaches occur when either a human or a machine acquires unauthorized permissions. Sophisticated hackers search for ways to access system components that are already "trusted." Sometimes, this can only be achieved by accessing other components that are already "trusted." Hackers research ways to chain their way into a system/network, using already trusted components as their steppingstones.

In a system/network where this is not possible, this is not possible. I'm not saying that this is the end of security concerns. I'm just saying that this paradigm addresses the weak link of human involvement and eliminates any one human's process ID from acquiring additional authorizations beyond what the organization has given to that user's role or position. Any process ID that is spawned from the outside will forever only have at most "guest" permissions but will usually have none.

HarveyH55 wrote:and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs.

That's a different topic. This is the durability of your data and that is something over which you have complete control. I recommend glancing at the following:

https://blog.westerndigital.com/data-availability-vs-durability/

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans decide what needs to be encrypted.

Sure, but it's not quite the same thing as saying that your organization has mandated a particular encryption policy that will be enforced by your system, and that your system will automatically encrypt all message traffic and streaming data that falls under certain criteria. Sure, humans crafted the policy but once it is put into effect, it's in effect and humans do not have any say in the matter at that point.

HarveyH55 wrote:Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

Here you are talking about deliberate spying and/or insider threat.

I don't deny that intentional criminal or otherwise hostile activity can be entirely prevented; however, physical and technical security continually improves as well. If you were to try to take a very tiny camera into an intelligence headquarters, for example, there's a good chance that once you get beyond the turnstiles, some security personnel will approach you and say "Sir/Ma'am, we need you to step over here."

If you were to stick a thumb-drive into a DoD computer at the Pentagon, the phone at that desk will ring, and you had better answer it. The voice at the other end will tell you to not leave, and that personnel are on their way to your location.

So, we're getting there, or at least we're moving ever closer in that direction.

.
17-10-2022 07:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It really won't matter, since humans are always the weak link. The humans will always need the means to get their data. The key forgotten, lost, or destroyed, will still need to be recovered, access restored. There will always be some means to recover access, and locked data. There will always be human gatekeepers.

Security also needs fast, and convenient authentication. Most people expect near instant gratification, with the least hassle. What good is a bank card, if it's a major hassle to use? Most of the data breaches don't seem to be brute-force, attacks from outside. They are inside jobs, deliberate, unknown agents, or just left the door open. It's a phishing email, or unauthorized device (cell phone) that opens the door in many cases.

We have dozens of passwords to remember, several that expire every few months. Most people need to write them down, store them on a device, which is typically less secure. Humans use the tools available, but are seriously lazy, and will make anything simpler, more convenient for themselves.

I think both you and IBdaMann are confusing passwords with cryptography. At this point, Harvey, you are more correct. IBdaMann brings up great points about cryptography, but passwords and cryptography are different. Passwords are authentications, and NOT the private key. Case in point: Signing into this site requires a password that a human remembers, and that another human (like an administrator) can reset, if necessary. This has nothing to do with any key generated in SSL.

I wasn't confusing anything.

Yes you are. Auth is not cryptography. Internal system security is not cryptography.
IBdaMann wrote:
Harvey had raised a good point about humans being the weak link in the security chain.

Because of auth, and because of internal security, NOT because of cryptography.
IBdaMann wrote:
I was giving him good news that new paradigms are being developed to ameliorate that weak link by removing, and in some cases, prohibiting, human involvement.

Not possible.
IBdaMann wrote:
Passwords never enter the discussion. Passwords are effectively eliminated in favor of security best practices.

YES THEY DO! It has NOTHING TO DO with 'security best practices'. Buzzword fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
The elliptic curve asymmetric cryptography addresses the CIA (Confidentiality-Integrity-Availability) triad and makes it virtually impossible for it to be broken by human actors.

Auth is not cryptography. Internal security is not cryptography. False equivalence fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
The Zero Trust (ZT) Framework implementing Least Privilege (typically through ABAC or RBAC) addresses the authorizations of any process ID throughout the system/network, preventing even humans who are authorized on the system/network from being able to perform undesirable actions, and that includes actions performed through other system/network machines/components that have their own authorizations.

Buzzword fallacy. You are discussing internal system security. This is not cryptography either.
IBdaMann wrote:
ZT prevents hackers from gaining control of a trusted system component and then using that component's authorizations to perform actions.

I know what the dream is. Unfortunately, systems are written by people.
IBdaMann wrote:
One principle of ZT is granular network segmentation that limits the authorizations of any components to the authorizations of the calling process ID.

I know what the dream is. Unfortunately, systems are written by people.
IBdaMann wrote:
If a person whose account has limited authorizations nonetheless gains control over a component with increased authorizations, the component's authorizations will be reduced;

IF and only if the system functions as intended. This has NOTHING to do with cryptography or auth.
IBdaMann wrote:
the calling process ID will not inherit additional authorizations.

There is no calling process ID. The ident used in a transaction is not a process ID or even a process. NONE of this has anything to do with internal system security or cryptography.
IBdaMann wrote:
Implicit in this paradigm is the elimination of anyone "gaining root access."

Already there. Guess what? Systems are written by people. They are imperfect.
IBdaMann wrote:
Someone can still try, but success will only result in that root process ID losing root privileges.

I know the dream. Systems are written by people.
IBdaMann wrote:
That's all. Humans are being "dealt with."

No. Systems are written by people. They are imperfect. Cryptography has NOTHING to do with internal security. Cryptography has NOTHING to do with auth.

False equivalence fallacy. Illicit major fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-10-2022 07:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's still a tool, and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs. Humans decide what needs to be encrypted. Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

Quite right. At some point in time, the data itself MUST be in plain text for viewing or editing.

Other humans DO access the data. Programmers. This is part of internal system security handling this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-10-2022 07:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It's still a tool,

It's not so much a tool as it is an architecture framework. It's a way of thinking about systems that eliminates inherent trust.

It is neither. It is a set of internal system security policies and the use of certain useful libraries.
IBdaMann wrote:
When you say that humans are the weak link, that's only partially true.

No. IT IS COMPLETELY TRUE.
IBdaMann wrote:
Security breaches occur when either a human or a machine acquires unauthorized permissions.

Not necessarily. Security breaches ALSO occur when someone that IS authorized misuses his privileges. This is more common than you might think. Another type of attack is simply a denial of service (DOS attack). There is no authorization or breaking any cryptography required at all. This also is fairly common.
IBdaMann wrote:
Sophisticated hackers search for ways to access system components that are already "trusted." Sometimes, this can only be achieved by accessing other components that are already "trusted." Hackers research ways to chain their way into a system/network, using already trusted components as their steppingstones.

Hackers do not break security systems, except accidentally. Hackers are not crooks trying to break into computer systems. This term is severely misused by the press. See the Hacker's Dictionary, with originally defined the term 'hacker'.
IBdaMann wrote:
In a system/network where this is not possible, this is not possible.

It is always possible. Systems are written by people. Networks are secured by people. Both systems and networks are imperfect. They will NEVER BE PERFECT.
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not saying that this is the end of security concerns.

Yes you did. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm just saying that this paradigm addresses the weak link of human involvement and eliminates any one human's process ID from acquiring additional authorizations beyond what the organization has given to that user's role or position. Any process ID that is spawned from the outside will forever only have at most "guest" permissions but will usually have none.
An ident is not a process ID. It never will be. People need more than 'guest' permissions.
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:and would be useless, if there is no possible way to recover the data should a failure occurs.

That's a different topic. This is the durability of your data and that is something over which you have complete control. I recommend glancing at the following:

https://blog.westerndigital.com/data-availability-vs-durability/

Strawman fallacy. Disk durability and the marketing of it is likewise not perfect. Data is usually destroyed by computer action, NOT by a disk failing. Any decent RAID system can handle a disk failure automatically with no loss of data.
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Humans decide what needs to be encrypted.

Sure, but it's not quite the same thing as saying that your organization has mandated a particular encryption policy that will be enforced by your system, and that your system will automatically encrypt all message traffic and streaming data that falls under certain criteria. Sure, humans crafted the policy but once it is put into effect, it's in effect and humans do not have any say in the matter at that point.

YES THEY DO. Programmers must implement internal system security. Cryptography is NOT internal system security. Cryptography is NOT auth.
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Humans are present when the data is presented. Other humans will still need to access data, for it to be useful. Even if they can't insert a thumbdrive, and copy the selected data, there is still a display, and cameras can be very small...

Here you are talking about deliberate spying and/or insider threat.

Yes...he is. This is actually a significant threat. It can and does occur by someone that is authorized to be on site.
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't deny that intentional criminal or otherwise hostile activity can be entirely prevented;

Paradox. See above. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
IBdaMann wrote:
however, physical and technical security continually improves as well.

Sure. Better locks, better libraries, better cryptography techniques, improvements in cross checks performed by security personnel and/or supervisors, better operating systems (such as Unix (or Linux). ALL of these, however, are subject to human frailties.
IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to try to take a very tiny camera into an intelligence headquarters, for example, there's a good chance that once you get beyond the turnstiles, some security personnel will approach you and say "Sir/Ma'am, we need you to step over here."

Businesses and homes aren't forts, dude. Comparing a business or home to an intelligence headquarters is a false equivalence fallacy.
IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to stick a thumb-drive into a DoD computer at the Pentagon, the phone at that desk will ring, and you had better answer it. The voice at the other end will tell you to not leave, and that personnel are on their way to your location.

Nope. It won't. Pen drives (thumb drives) are simply not accepted by the system in question. You can plug one in, but it won't mount. The software to mount it has simply been removed from the system. If someone happens to see you try to insert such a drive and mount it, they will notify security anyway.
IBdaMann wrote:
So, we're getting there, or at least we're moving ever closer in that direction.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Quantum Supremacy achieved by Sycamore Googles Quantum Computer:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 20195020-11-2022 23:20
Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r6701-11-2022 04:08
Quantum internet alliance to build unhackable quantum internet7930-10-2022 02:08
What Is Quantum Entanglement? A Physicist Explains QE for really dumb people2428-10-2022 19:48
Mastercard Develops Quantum-Safe Payment Cards4527-10-2022 22:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact