Printable View
I too am very interested in this theory, how bloated it may be.
You could claim Galilei is not very bright because his stuff contradicts the Relativity Theory in most things (supposing Einstein is correct). That would be bullshit, this is something similar.
me too being a newb... (under this nick) ... but i cannot believe that this post actually got 5 pages of replies... this idiocy should have been closed at the first post
.
<quote> Nokia. 20 years ago people like you would have said the internet was impossible, 3Ghz CPU's would have been impossible, 100GB HDD's would have been impossible etc etc etc etc etc.
</quote>
Under that same logic wouldn't it be possible for virus to be written to exploite this same invunerable system? since nothing is impossible. The only way I could see that coming to be true would be to build the system, unplug it from the net, turn it off, then take out the cmos battery. That would be secure from viruses.
I say give the guy a little bit to reply. He made the first post a 3:50 am and maybe he's at work now... and if he doesn't reply just mark it off as being complete BS.
Heh heh, and he'll get back on to see :eek: 5 pages of replies, most of which have nothing to do with his question! ;)
Oh well, it did turn into a fun thread though, you have to admit. :D
I guess it's my concept of human nature that makes me pessimistic of this. When someone says they are the smartest man someone else must prove they are smarter. When someone builds the tallest building someone will make one taller. When someone says something is indestructible someone will build something to destroy it. What is the likelihood that someone would take it upon themselves to defeat this?
Sorry!
So when are we going to move this tread to Cosmos? ;)
Yeah trying out Pen n pad is a good subsittude for security lol :)
Okay. For those of you who put such a high value on status and labels such as my status as a "newbie", I am a newbie when it comes to posting. I have been watching and reading all your posts for the past 4 years. I am not new to computing--and I never went the usual route of learning computers that you find in people in the computer corp world. I have been to college--University of Tennessee. Worked with computers there until I opted out due to politics of some ideas I had developed. I guess I went in thinking one thing and came out frustrated by the lack of creativity. Since then, I have worked with home automation, have written viruses, designed circuit boards, OS/Hardware systems--all on my own time and discretion. I have drawn interest from the boys at Oak Ridge N.L. and Los Alamos N.L., former and present employees. The point I am trying to make is this--virus writers stay in the dark while writing brilliant code, such as Slammer--beautiful!--but they do what they do for their own reasons and cause harm to the system we work hard to keep stable and secure. I know how viruses work. Everything I have ever done is in the name of optimistic vision. It is easy to be pessemistic and piggyback when something new comes along because someone else showed us the door when we didnt' see it. Throughout history, doors have been shown and opened for us but it has been up to us whether or not to open the door and take that route.
I am not going to write a book about who I am and what I have done. Don't put such a high value on labels. And yes, there are those of you who are wondering why I am all of the sudden approaching such an experienced knowledgeable group of engineers and programmers. After, consulting with collegiate institutions and small companies, I have found that they want to stay at home base, what keeps them in business, making a good living and/or following a strict curriculum that strongly opposes anything outside the description of what the college wants to focus on. That is one reason I left C.S. at the University of Tennessee. So, what else can I do? Approach you guys.
I am struggling with the temptation of spilling my guts and brains about how this works. But I am also very business minded and have seen what people can do by taking someone else's idea. I have learned the hard way to put up front a N.D.A. In this world, people like Bill Gates will take it and sign it for himself. But here is the general explanation until someone wants to contact me.
We work to hard and so hard battling viruses and the games they play, coding and manipulation that we have lost our sight for the basics of what defines the reputation of what a virus/worm/trojan can do. Getting back to the basics, transmissions and execution. My idea revolves on the current technology but I have made some modifications to it to TOTALLY change the transmisson of data from servers to clients. Also, I am designing a new browser to work hand in hand with this new technology in hugely symbiotic relationship. I so wish I could tell the world right now the spec's....but I have seen what can happen. Also, for those of you who are interested, I stumbled upon this idea while trying to improve the stability and speed of 56kdial. And I found a way to improve the speed to as fast as the layman's perception of DSL/cable speeds. Not the technique that NetZero or AOL uses for "faster" 56k. And I have stayed within FCC regulations of telephone lines and data limit transmissions. Anyway, there is so many questions about this....I hope I have answered some questions and I know haven't answered some especially concerning the blueprint of my idea.
If you believe things can be improved to levels we couldn't imagine in the past years then please get in touch. I am currently living in Nashville, TN.
Thank you for interest.
Well, you certainly have my attention. Not a bad defense for your initial post. Doesn't leave much to discuss though...
I'm interested. I'm really curious what your mind is pondering although I won't put my scepticism to the side. Eh what the hell...lets do it.
I work with connections that utilize proxy based web caching servers on a daily basis. Though I can't say that I have a good opion of them You do have me courious. If I understand what your talking about doing correctl it sounds a bit interesting.
gbrowne40-
How are you planning to "change" the internet here...
Unless you change and standardize the OS from end to end then I can't see how you can make this possible. Code of any sort will still be sent back and forth, and end to end of the wire will still transfer data. Now unless you cut the legs off the data that is transmitted, everything sent back and forth will still be executed in some way by the OS.
How is the data your internet is transfering different that the data todays internet is transfering? It will be the same when it reaches it's destination unless you have something in mind.
mua haha..... post 666
If this idea is legit take it to a company like Microsoft, or Symantec. Dont go to little companies, most can afford the research and cant risk the loss. a company like microsoft can drop millions in research and if nothing comes from it they will still have billions left over. not to mention the cash you will make from it.
"I have successfully --on paper--designed a technology to outright eliminate the existence of viruses"
Forever? If that's the case, your technology would have to adapt to future threats by itself, which, in my books means the technology would have to be sentient or self-aware.
Perhaps he has created......uh oh.....The BORG!
As one of the last posts mentioned, I would consult or contact someone such as Symantec or Microsoft. The best they can do is listen. The worst they can do is shrug you off.
Good luck though!
I'm out. I don't program. I'm just a network/security guy, so if you'd like someone to break your ****, I'm your man! I'd be willing to sign an NDA, cause the info wouldn't do me a whole hell of allot of good anyway.
I disagree with some of my cohorts, I don't think you should approach a big company, they have the means to screw you out of everything. Keep it to yourself and do it on your own. There some scary smart programmers here at AO and if you get their interest you could go places.
As far as whether or not this is possible, you'd at least it'ds be different than the same old crap coming out of MS and the rest of the software pukes today.
Good luck.
Yes, I could go to Microsoft. But why give them the drivers seat to total dominance? What Bill did was needed and forever changed things. But look where they are going with it. If you really believed you had something in your hands that could propel you next to Bill and put the anti-viruses companies out of business and make networks safer and not money driven....No offense to the companies, but sometimes I can't help to view them like car mechanics pushing their $$ subscriptions and using fear based threats to create total dependacy of users on them. I want this within my control and reach. But, at the moment I am nothing. Just a regular guy with a vision who will, with the right support and structure, will try to change things. Just trying to live a dream. Let me elaborate very quickly--I am looking to form a team of programmers/engineers proficient with MySQL, general/technical server knowledge and people who know their languages and love the impossible challenge....
The Web is a Open Standard. The right support and structure is the W3C or IEEE.
If you drop in Montreal, I'll be glag to sign your paper to ear you but I'm don't understand how you could change the Internet without joinning the W3C or IEEE.
perhaps he is creating a new internet, not fixing the current one?
....and suddenly you've gotten my attention. I'm still extremely skeptical but if technology like what you're talking about came into existance and it put AV companies out of business, it would also nuke people like me just trying to make it by performing small services like spyware/virus/trojan and worm removal. This still smells like a huge pile of bullsh*t to me, but you've definitely gotten my attention. Anyway, even if it's BS that doesn't make this thread worthless, because this has sure sparked an interesting discussion. If this turns out to actually be something (which I have serious doubts about) - I'm not a coder but perhaps you could find a place for me? NDA is understandable and for God's sake don't hand Microsoft anything else - they already have most of the technologically developed nations and their occupants by the nads.Quote:
Originally posted here by gbrowne40
If you really believed you had something in your hands that could propel you next to Bill and put the anti-viruses companies out of business and make networks safer and not money driven....
*edit*
Wouldn't a project like that take WAY more money than people (or companies) are willing to spend?Quote:
perhaps he is creating a new internet, not fixing the current one?
MemorYQuote:
Originally posted here by mark_boyle2002
[calling nokias bluff]
come to think of it nokia. Could you name a senior member with full ap who is a 15 year old kid who knows nothing. I am struggling.
[/calling nokias bluff]
You're getting rid of Microsoft? I have Virus free internet right now, 2 Slackware boxes and a BSD workstation.Quote:
Originally posted here by gbrowne40
I have successfully --on paper--designed a technology to outright eliminate the existence of viruses
Basicallly to do what your doing, your going to need your own programming language. If your planning on using languages that already exist, then it won't work, someone would have already seen the possibility...
"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is."
--probably_tons_of_people
I'm waxing verbose today, so let's begin. Examine the criteria. Viruses. First, I believe we can all agree their most important aspect is that they are algorithms, or sets of instruction. Secondly, these sets of instructions are able to replicate, increasing (through their influence) the number of concurrent and/or sequential instances of their execution.
To make a virus-free internet, you must either mean eliminating the internet as a vector, or having the participating nodes of the net all be both virus-immune and incapable of transmitting viruses, or else the viruses would still 'exist' on the internet.
That latter meaning is so obviously reaching that I will bypass it, since it would mean virtual perfection of control over all hardware and software systems, at least those with IP addresses. And assigning all availible IP addresses to chunks of inert rock isn't too useful.
Now for the former interpretation. The internet as a medium is virus free, so it cannot transmit viruses. Since you mention the internet specifically and presumably the current version of it, this will be packet data, the scope being anywhere between the ports of end-node computers.
To prevent viruses, you must split them from useful traffic. This means identifying either useful or virus traffic. I do not believe with present technology that useful traffic can feasibly be 'signed' cryptographically, at least not to an extent that the speed of transmission and processing is both useful and that viruses cannot forge it.
So we have to default-allow everything and detect viruses. These viruses will often be split up over more than one packet, requiring reassembly, scanning, and purging. Given the structure of the internet, each router would be hard-pressed to verify the number of hops that a packet has taken to get to it, so each router would need to scan to be safe unless specific DMZ routers were set up.
So we need to reassemble every packet stream, scan it for *known* viruses, scan it in a perfect heuristical sense (or try a sandbox) and then either pass or reject the packet stream. The fastest way to do this may be to drop packets only once you are sure it is a virus, hoping the fragmentary first part is missing enough code to be inert or disabled. Caching the whole stream would be impractical in terms of space and processing, but also in terms of latency---packet data would surge and flow in waves and floods and other water-imagery, pretty much destroying the whole point of packet-based switching.
So in the end you have every single router snooping every single stream of data and assembling it for scanning, meaning you've just more than more-than-linearly increased the necessary processing power to keep the internet moving depending on the number of nodes. (As for distributed virus scanners that cooperate, see my earlier post.)
In light of that particular set up assumptions and chain of reasoning, I prefer the inert rock plan. Cheaper with just as many end-user features.
And no, quantum computing principles are not kosher as a defense. :)
:) Well , if i wasn't confused at the start of this thread i bloody well
am now. :confused:
In saying that, i will also add that it is one of the best debates on this site
in a long time. No neggs and insults (well not many) and a good all round
discussion is an improvement that is welcomed.
Does that mean i can throw away my crayons and scribbly pad?
Torr...I like what you are saying but I could forsee "smart-viruses" in the event of that technique. Viruses broken up from packets and would have to have a way to be reassembled. I would develop a virus to work in multiple stages ultimately reassembling to execute. That is an approach I would take to battle that...I like the way you think. Things could be so much easier if we start from the original square one. And there is no reason to try to identify which is malicious and which is legit. I am sure. I notice you are from Seattle. What do you do? And for who? Your quote says alot about what I am going for...
I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but are you sure there would be any takers? Looking back at the old VHS vs Betamax scenario, or CD music vs those nasty MP3s :cry: the best technology doesn't always win. The internet is already widespread (no kidding!) and getting ingrained in its ways... IPv6?
Big companies like Billy's would rather do things their own way (Trustworthy Computing, anyone?), and that would be a tough battle regardless of how good your product could be.
Then again, if you could find a way of pushing this to the porn industry... :D
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this succeed, but it might be a hard slog.
As a community, we should be open-minded and skeptical at the same time. If this idea has merits and has been discussed by some of our more experienced community members, then the rest of us should try to help.
I offer my computing resources if needed (though I doubt they would be).
Gl with it
you've got my attention and id be interested in seeing the idea even if it meant signing the NDA.
i2c
I've signed NDA's for weirder stuff..
so if ever.. count me in !!
Although it is "realy" dangerous for a GPL minded person to ever sign a NDA...
I have signed them for my current job too ;)
humm..sounds cool. Although I'm not a well established programmer yet(only know html, css,qbasic and now learning assembly) it sounds to good to be true but I would be gessing 5 or more years to make. It would be better to start from the ground up(new os) so you can under stand what it can and can not do. Thinking Linux has a cd(correct me if I'm wrong) which has its os on! Doing something like this would prevent enffection(unless residing in ram, etc) since you can not reburn a cd or dvd for that matter. Then for extra store(hd of course) has multiple filters(firewalls etc). doing something like pgp(or is it p2p oh well) that has a public key that is only assigned to you and your isp(a new one for each user) making it harder(not impossible) to decipher. clueless but I am learning! lol
Designing a new os is not a solution, in the best case it is just securer than current oses available, it's not going to be foolproof.
The whole design of today is just completely wrong. Users don't patch their systems, don't secure it properly...and it won't get better.
I think the solution to all this is to change design. Today, you buy a computer and subscribe to dsl for example to get online. This is very insecure if you are not knowledgable about possible threats to your computer. What if those computers are replaced by dumb terminals without a harddisk? Instead you subscribe to a 'software provider', your box connects to a server (software for this is in a chip, (bios?)) and there you can login with your account and use whatever os you want (everything is on that server so no security risks for you to deal with). Restrictions can easily be applied by the professionals running the service. Security is done by them.
Todays network speeds are way too slow for that, but this is possible in the future.
While extremely dangerous when someone is able to root the whole thing that is very unlikely to happen, how many have rooted their dsl/cable providers?
Sounds pretty impossible to me
Unless you make everyone dissect each program before using it...
its still too impossible...
maybe if you explain your strategy with a bit more detail...
you sound like a kindergartener designing a better internet
Haha, it's just an idea that came into my mind.Quote:
you sound like a kindergartener designing a better internet
The programs don't have to be bug free. If you cannot own the virtual machine running all operating systems you cannot own the server. The thing is that the "main os" has to be bug free. Suppose you are a user who chooses Linux Suse as his os, there are no local privileges to escalate, you are root on your os and can do whatever you want with it. Compare with VMWare (I've never used it though), if you root an os from a guest account running inside it you still can't control anything else than your own os.
And about attacking other user's operating systems, while you would have to use a zero-day exploit to be able to own another user's operating system there should be no way to directly access other's operating system.
Maybe that's his point. He doesn't want us to know the details, he gave us a kindergartner design of it, so that we can figure out the basics of it without knowing enough to run with it.Quote:
you sound like a kindergartener designing a better internet
El Half, your idea sounds VERY plausible for the future... You should go somewhere with that idea, I think that would work amazingly well...
Thank you, however, think of the negative consequences, privacy is completely gone if such a thing would ever come.Quote:
El Half, your idea sounds VERY plausible for the future...
If this concept is not bloated they would either laugh me away (why would they believe some completely unknown 16y kid?) or steal my idea and apply it. I'd like to see some more feedback on this from other members.Quote:
You should go somewhere with that idea, I think that would work amazingly well...
"Smart-noun" is just marketing speak for something with some additional capabilities compared to what we already have. We haven't made anything smart as a civilization, we've only created tools which counterfeit smartness but are actually highly preprogrammed in a fixed manner by the planning of a human mind. Genetic algorithm work--might be too early in it's infancy to matter here. There's also an evolutionary pressure against complex viruses, both biologically and technologically, but somehow that little paperclip guy arrived on the scene and I've been terrified since.Quote:
Originally posted here by gbrowne40
Torr...I like what you are saying but I could forsee "smart-viruses" in the event of that technique.
How would it work before it executes without some cop-out over the term 'executes' so that it can 'work' by being 'interpreted-but-not-executed' code?Quote:
I would develop a virus to work in multiple stages ultimately reassembling to execute.
See: Inert RockQuote:
Things could be so much easier if we start from the original square one.
The first step to running programs but not running viruses is to distinguish between them, unless it's magical world where you don't really care about the outcome.Quote:
And there is no reason to try to identify which is malicious and which is legit. I am sure.
Quote:
I notice you are from Seattle.
... Only in residency.
Exactly, using your plan, freedom would be dramatically cut. You also stated it would be easier for your ISP to put restrictions this way, while it might cut down in virus activity, I'd rather keep my freedom and just stick with my free AV :D.Quote:
Thank you, however, think of the negative consequences, privacy is completely gone if such a thing would ever come
The second you say that something is impossible it will be attacked constantly until the impossible has happened. It is just another challenge. SO unless you plan on not letting anyone access the "perfect" internet, and dont tell anyone about it, then it should stay "perfect"
i agree we are known for our coders, but i can assure you that the majority of the members here can code at least a little bit, and that alot of people here can code very well. (im one of those that knows very little about programming, but u have to remember all the different types of people here.)Quote:
Originally posted here by whizkid2300
Just out of curiousity, why post this on AO.
AO isn't really known for it's coder's. There are a couple of us floating around here, but most of the people on AO don't really code often, or at all.