| From: | gurth@******.nl (Gurth) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR4: matrix -- first impression |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:15:24 +0100 |
street was...
> Perhaps deckers weren't even primarily considered as a
> threat
Ummm... We're talking about a system purportedly designed by the
_military_, and you're saying they wouldn't consider someone using it a
threat? I find that harder to believe than the Matrix itself ;)
> The method by which simsense interacts
> with machine code might necessitate that machine code
> is subject to an intrinsic vulnerability to any form
> of simsense in/output.
That just doesn't make sense, not in the least because then nobody in
their right minds would even consider going to simsense except for tasks
that absolutely can't do without it, or which simply don't have anything
that can possibly be messed around with (which is nothing whatsoever,
leaving only the first category).
> However, an essential feature of simsense might be
> that it contains a universal compiler/machine code
> interface of some sort that allows the user of
> simsense in/output to always interface with any kind
> of machine code based technology in a way that is so
> superior to any kind of machine code based defenses
> designed against this happening, that it becomes
> impossible to secure against except using specialised
> programs built to specifically generate simsense
> output.
I can't see this happening. Just because I can access my computer at the
speed of thought rather than the speed of my hand moving the mouse and
that of my fingers on my keyboard, doesn't mean I can just change, say,
file permissions only because I want to. An interface that lets you do
this is fundamentally broken, and defensive "programs built to
specifically generate simsense output" are its equivalent of Windows
Service Packs :)
> This could be especially
> true if one realises that a simsense interface uses
> the brain as its computing equipment, thus making it a
> relatively cheap way to counteract any kind of
> ordinary machine programming.
Then why do you need a deck costing at least tens of thousands of nuyen
to be even barely okay at it, and hundreds of thousands to be considered
a good decker?
> Much in the way that only a fraction of the population
> is magically active, not everybody is so dedicated to
> geekdom as to be decker. Also consider that not every
> corporation can afford the best in countermeasures and
> that they might not need to, in an almost wholly
> similar vein to corporations today.
I see pretty much all of this as arguments for why corps would invest in
computers that do things the old-fashioned way, which run an OS that
_doesn't_ do VR, and a firewall that hides itself from any incoming
simsense signals :)
--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
