Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Put up or shut up: no viruses on OS X

Put up or shut up: no viruses on OS X
Thread Tools
CaptainHaddock
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 12:35 AM
 
Blogger/Mac developer Will Shipley (of Delicious Monster) proposes a challenge to shut up all those clueless tech reporters and Windows users who think there are OS X viruses. He'll pay $500 to anyone who can demonstrate their OS X installation has ever been infected with a worm or virus.

Virus Challenge: "Put up or shut up"

Note that it's not a programming contest, so the infection would have to have happened before Sept. 20.
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 01:58 AM
 
The comments are quite entertaining. Funny how we're all "graphic designers" (how many times have I heard that one before).
     
CaptainHaddock  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 02:45 AM
 
Yeah, I had an argument just the other day with a Mac-hating acquaintance who said they were "only good for video and graphics", and that the Macs at his company got viruses just like the PCs. I asked him to be more specific and tell me what virus they got, but he wouldn't (or couldn't, more likely).
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 02:49 AM
 
The Macs at the place I used to work got a virus. They were running OS 8…
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 05:25 PM
 
Only thrice have I ever encountered Mac viruses in the wild: once on a floppy disk from someone (caught by Virex), another was on the Macromedia Studio 5.5 CD that was infected (caught by Disinfectant). Both of those were in the early 1990s. I've never been infected. I think I've only ever encountered one virus-infected Mac, and that was still in the System 7 days -- before we had the Internet to provide what is now the primary infection vector.

tooki
     
jam8
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 06:03 PM
 
there is the possiblity of getting a macro virus from microsoft word documents being interchangeable between OSX and windows, as per a previous thread. OS X isn't perfect, but it's damn near
     
jam8
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
From his website:

I'm going to offer a bounty of $500 to the first person who can prove that a Mac running Mac OS X (version 10.0 or greater, and patched to the latest security level available at the time from Apple) was accidentally and detrimentally infected with a virus that exploited a flaw in the base Mac OS X installation (not, say, Microsoft Word) before September 20, 2005.
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by jam8
there is the possiblity of getting a macro virus from microsoft word documents being interchangeable between OSX and windows, as per a previous thread. OS X isn't perfect, but it's damn near
Just enable macrovirus protection and you will be fine.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 07:19 PM
 
heh I think most people know that there are no viruses on OS X...
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 07:31 PM
 
No, really they don't. Most seasoned Mac users do, but we hardly make up a large part of the population, or even a large part of computer users. Most people think viruses are omnipresent.

tooki
     
bowwowman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: If I tellz ya, then I gotsta killz ya !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 07:41 PM
 
heh I think most people know that there are no viruses on OS X...
to which I must offer the most obligatory response known in these parts:


A) Most people are stupid, when it comes to computer security, totally clueless
B) Most people are NOT mac users
C) These are the same people that claim their computers are "sO kewl"
Personally I find it hilarious that you have the hots for my gramma. Especially seeins how she is 3x your age, and makes your Brittney-Spears-wannabe 30-something wife look like a rag doll who went thru WWIII with a burning stick of dynamite up her a** :)
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 10:23 PM
 
I find this quote from the site interesting:

But we put up with this crap every day, mainly because it's nigh-impossible to prove the negative.
The truth of what he says is undisputable, and is not what I disagree with. What interests me and what I disagree with is the nature of the matter asserted: we have to prove the negative?

In formal debate, the affirmitave has the burden of proof. In the court of law, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Why? Because they are the ones bringing charges. Likewise, the "charge" of vulnerability (or more specifically, the past malicious exploitation of such a vulnerability) to a virus must be proved by those who bring it. We must prove nothing. Until an OSX virus is proved to exist, we do not even need to argue. They lose. So next time anyone asks you to prove that there are no OSX viruses, simply say its them, not you, that has to prove things.

Where are you james9490?

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
I find this quote from the site interesting:



The truth of what he says is undisputable, and is not what I disagree with. What interests me and what I disagree with is the nature of the matter asserted: we have to prove the negative?

In formal debate, the affirmitave has the burden of proof. In the court of law, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Why? Because they are the ones bringing charges. Likewise, the "charge" of vulnerability (or more specifically, the past malicious exploitation of such a vulnerability) to a virus must be proved by those who bring it. We must prove nothing. Until an OSX virus is proved to exist, we do not even need to argue. They lose. So next time anyone asks you to prove that there are no OSX viruses, simply say its them, not you, that has to prove things.

Where are you james9490?
Of course, you're presuming those who are saying that there are OS X viruses are educated. Most of these geniuses don't have a clue.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:25 AM
 
I feel bad for the PC people. I was just on another message board and some java pop-up crap kept running. Ironically called "Winfix 2005" it would open up windows no matter what and tried to download .exe files, which I've seen other spyware/spamwares do left and right. I can just sit back and watch these stealth downloads land harmlessly on my desktop, but these poor PC users are getting them without even knowing it.

It's sad that they're too deluded to know there's another way.
     
sieb
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 02:21 AM
 
How many viruses have been found on linux/freebsd/debian compared to windows? I rest my case.

I don't usually quote the Register, but this is a good insight: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 03:34 AM
 
In my mac life I've come across two viruses. The first was the Quicktime Auto-start worm, back in oh, OS 8.1 or so. The second was shortly afterwards, the Graphics Accelerator Virus thing which was installed as an extension.

These were easily removed, didn't propagate, and made me wise to the possibility of viruses.

Since OSX I've never seen nor heard of one. I've run Virex a few times, just to make sure I'm not harboring any windows viruses with no symptoms. As yet, I've had none.
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
In formal debate, the affirmitave has the burden of proof. In the court of law, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Why? Because they are the ones bringing charges.
I beg to differ, because in traffic court, you're guilty until proven innocent (usually on a technicality).

Back to the topic, the only Mac virus I ever caught was SevenDust when I was running OS 8.1 on my slow-as-molasses PowerBook 1400/133. SAM (Norton) caught it as my OS was booting up through the extensions.
     
Thain Esh Kelch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:33 PM
 
I once had an evil virus which layed down 3 OS9 machines on a network.. It was quite evil actually.. Never know where I got it from.
     
Thade
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
OK..I get it... Macs don't have that many (or any) virus. That said, do you guys think it's a wise idea to challenge or taunt the peeps that create them?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 11:17 AM
 
Doesn't seem to make any difference.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CaptainHaddock  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
If you read Shipley's post, there's no challenge to virus writers at all.

It's a challenge to moronic tech journalists. Stop saying Mac OS X is "mostly" virus free if it's completely virus free at the present time. Just tell the truth.
     
kcmac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock
If you read Shipley's post, there's no challenge to virus writers at all.

It's a challenge to moronic tech journalists. Stop saying Mac OS X is "mostly" virus free if it's completely virus free at the present time. Just tell the truth.
'zactly.
     
teszeract
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the end of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 08:58 PM
 
I hate this waving of the red flag. I like my Mac the way it is, stable.

Oh, there will be virii eventually - in no small part due to idiots slapping the gauntlet around.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:33 PM
 
I agree wieh teszeract. I think this bounty idea is a very bad thing. It isn't just because it may spur some smart but warped person to go ahead and try writing a Mac virus-or because it may spur some smart but well-intentioned fool to try to prove it's impossible. Trying to convince everyone that there are not currently wild OS X viruses will get a large number of people to think that OS X cannot be infected at all.

Anything made by man is flawed; it can be MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that all software MUST be flawed at some level and to some degree. Computer scientists consider this when making deep design decisions, and they plan around the possibility that the software could fail dramatically. But it doesn't take a dramatic failure to make an OS vulnerable-all it takes is one little unchecked buffer fill.

Since even OS X must have some flaw or other-probably a number of them-then it is only a matter of time until somebody gets a bee in his bonnet and starts poking around to try to find a flaw that can be exploited. Then he will write a virus and release it on the world. When that time comes, and there IS a virus for OS X out in the wild and doing bad things to people's Macs, it will be too late to start thinking "gee, I wish I had at least considered that my computer is not invulnerable."

Note that tooki pointed out that his Mac virus experience was caught by an antivirus package that he was running at the time. Is it that much of a hassle to install something that doesn't cost too much (isn't Clam AV free?) and can be configured to keep itself up to date? It is if your computer is Superman and you don't believe in the possibility of kryptonite.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Brass
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
it can be MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that all software MUST be flawed at some level and to some degree.
Please reference your source or include the theorem and proof when making such profound sweeping statments.

I'd be interested to see some proof that shows a flaw in software generated from the following code:

Code:
#!/usr/bin/perl print "This software is not flawed!\n";
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by teszeract
I hate this waving of the red flag. I like my Mac the way it is, stable.

Oh, there will be viruses eventually - in no small part due to idiots slapping the gauntlet around.
Fixed.

There is no such word as virii in the english or even latin language.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
stinch
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uk
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brass
Please reference your source or include the theorem and proof when making such profound sweeping statments.

I'd be interested to see some proof that shows a flaw in software generated from the following code:

Code:
#!/usr/bin/perl print "This software is not flawed!\n";
Try to prove it's not flawed and you will see the massive task it is to produce flawless code. Humans make mistakes and to check every piece of code in a modern os just takes too long.
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by stinch
Try to prove it's not flawed and you will see the massive task it is to produce flawless code. Humans make mistakes and to check every piece of code in a modern os just takes too long.
Wrong.

Just plain false.

Ever heard of software design by mathematical proof?

I did a module on this in my Comp Sci degree. It was called formal methods and focused on designing software based on simple maths. You can then create software that can be proven to be 100% flawless.

See here
http://www.tfhrc.gov/advanc/softwar/soft2.htm
and numerous other places.
( Last edited by ShotgunEd; Sep 30, 2005 at 07:15 AM. )
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 06:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
<snip>Note that tooki pointed out that his Mac virus experience was caught by an antivirus package that he was running at the time. Is it that much of a hassle to install something that doesn't cost too much (isn't Clam AV free?) and can be configured to keep itself up to date? It is if your computer is Superman and you don't believe in the possibility of kryptonite.
It would greatly help if the anti-virus software vendors developed software that didn't (a) break the OS whenever it was updated and (b) didn't break itself whenever the OS was updated and (c) released prompt and free updates to prevent (a) and (b) from ever happening. Unfortunately, people are greatly discouraged from installing anti-viral software on their Macs when it has a deserved reputation of being far more of a problem itself than any non-viruses out there.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 08:17 AM
 
Agreed. Antivirus software for Mac OS X has proven to be buggy and unreliable, and highly intrusive. Disinfectant and Virex on classic Mac OS were model citizens.

And back then, there was something for antivirus programs to do. Right now, there is zero added value to justify the hassle. Once a Mac OS X virus is identified in the wild, I'll install antivirus software.

tooki
     
LeeG
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:27 PM
 
tooki....

word.


L
iPhone 3G 16Gb
24" 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo iMac, 4GB/320GB/256MB
12" AlBook 1Ghz/768Mb/80Gb/Combo/AX
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 05:31 PM
 
Don't be stupid, the program you used to compile, or execute your "flawless" application can be "hacked". I can change, modify anything you write to be dangerous. In the end it's all a binary stream going to a processor. That stream can be intercepted and modified.


Originally Posted by ShotgunEd
Wrong.

Just plain false.

Ever heard of software design by mathematical proof?

I did a module on this in my Comp Sci degree. It was called formal methods and focused on designing software based on simple maths. You can then create software that can be proven to be 100% flawless.

See here
http://www.tfhrc.gov/advanc/softwar/soft2.htm
and numerous other places.
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShotgunEd
Wrong.

Just plain false.

Ever heard of software design by mathematical proof?

I did a module on this in my Comp Sci degree. It was called formal methods and focused on designing software based on simple maths. You can then create software that can be proven to be 100% flawless.

See here
http://www.tfhrc.gov/advanc/softwar/soft2.htm
and numerous other places.
This is true I suppose, but it only will account for verifying that the code does indeed work. As in, no bugs, whatsoever. I mean, a windows box not hooked up to the internet will "work" 100% fine. It will do exactly what the developers intended it to do. Flawless?*

But once you hook that machine up to the net, it can be exploited, and this is a flaw. The code is not technically flawed--it is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. It is conceptually flawed. No amount of mathematical proofing will enable someone to write flawless code.

The gears of a clock tower can be precision tuned to the nanometer, and crafted so perfectly that without human interaction and with enough power, the clock would keep ticking forever. But no matter what, if I throw a wrench into those gears, the clock will break. Likewise, a piece of code can be technically flawless, but the moment a malicious user throws a piece of evil software into it, it will break. It is still doing exactly what it is supposed to do, but that very nature of how it works (no matter how perfectly it does) allows it to be brought down.




...well, I think. I really have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. It just seemed to make sense to me.

EDIT: *= the scenario is assuming that a fairy-tale version of windows exists--one that has been proven perfect by the method Ed mentioned. I doubt the windows code is perfect...

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
Detrius
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
Don't be stupid, the program you used to compile, or execute your "flawless" application can be "hacked". I can change, modify anything you write to be dangerous. In the end it's all a binary stream going to a processor. That stream can be intercepted and modified.
You failed to even remotely prove that the example was flawed. Even the example that you can hack the compiler still doesn't mean that the compiler is flawed--it means that the system that was supposed to keep you from modifying the compiler is flawed.

Proof by difficulty is not a valid method of proving anything. Can you prove that the following equation is unsolvable with non-zero integers:

a^3+b^3=c^3

Just saying that it is hard to find a value doesn't mean that it's impossible.
ACSA 10.4/10.3, ACTC 10.3, ACHDS 10.3
     
Tesseract
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: california
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:25 AM
 
Suppose I write a trivial and/or mathematically-proven-correct program in assembly language, so I know its compilation and execution do not depend on software that may be buggy. (OK, maybe the assembler is buggy. Then I can assemble it myself onto punch cards [so there is no editor involved] with the help of an opcode table.) Now have I not produced a bug-free piece of software?
     
midwinter
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
Can you prove that the following equation is unsolvable with non-zero integers:

a^3+b^3=c^3
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this forum is too small to contain.
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
Don't be stupid, the program you used to compile, or execute your "flawless" application can be "hacked". I can change, modify anything you write to be dangerous. In the end it's all a binary stream going to a processor. That stream can be intercepted and modified.
But what is your argument?

That I can't write code that is bug free and proven mathematically because you can just modify it and add a bug?

I can't get my head around what the hell your point is.
     
barney ntd
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bolton, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
This is true I suppose, but it only will account for verifying that the code does indeed work. As in, no bugs, whatsoever. I mean, a windows box not hooked up to the internet will "work" 100% fine. It will do exactly what the developers intended it to do. Flawless?*

But once you hook that machine up to the net, it can be exploited, and this is a flaw. The code is not technically flawed--it is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. It is conceptually flawed. No amount of mathematical proofing will enable someone to write flawless code.
This is true. In fact, writing mathematical specifications to guarantee "safe" behaviour in a networked environment is still an active research topic. In other words, we aren't sure how to do it, but we have some good ideas which might work.

There are some cases where the concepts work, for example Java and JavaScript sandboxes. And there are others where the concepts are disastrously wrong, for example Word macros and ActiveX controls. Dealing with the cases where the system must be as powerful as possible without conceptual flaws is still years away (assuming the research gets any funding!).

But most viruses and worms don't depend on conceptual flaws, they depend on bugs caused by programmer error, such as buffer overflow. These kind of bugs could be stopped by formal methods, if people thought the extra effort (i.e. cost) was worth it.

Of course, most trojans depend on user naivety. No amount of mathematics will stop that!

Barney.

P.S. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I've done research in this area.
     
CaptainHaddock  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by barney ntd
This is true. In fact, writing mathematical specifications to guarantee "safe" behaviour in a networked environment is still an active research topic.
Does that have anything to do with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem?
     
barney ntd
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bolton, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock
Does that have anything to do with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem?
Not really. Gödel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem sets a limit on what it is possible to prove in a formalised logical system. But the limit is to do with the complexity of numerical functions, not the details of the computer system.

The unsolved research problems are about how to express the way your computer is supposed to interact with all the others on the internet, without having to model explicitly what every computer in the world is currently doing.

If you remember your high-school physics, you could predict the path of a satellite pretty well without considering the position of all the planets in the solar system, even though their gravity does affect it. You just use the gravitational field, and notice that all the planets except earth make a trivial difference which you can ignore.

What we don't have for the internet is a concept analogous to the gravitational field, which would describe only the relevant behaviour of those computers which actually affect yours.

Does this make sense?

Barney.
     
Tesseract
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: california
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
Proof by difficulty is not a valid method of proving anything. Can you prove that the following equation is unsolvable with non-zero integers:

a^3+b^3=c^3

Just saying that it is hard to find a value doesn't mean that it's impossible.
No. But this guy can.
     
Chris O'Brien
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hebburn, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
Proof by difficulty is not a valid method of proving anything. Can you prove that the following equation is unsolvable with non-zero integers:

a^3+b^3=c^3

Just saying that it is hard to find a value doesn't mean that it's impossible.
Well, a=b=c makes it solvable I'll set a=1 so it's non-zero
Just who are Britain? What do they? Who is them? And why?

Formerly Black Book
     
Tesseract
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: california
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Black Book
Well, a=b=c makes it solvable I'll set a=1 so it's non-zero
1 + 1 = 1
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by midwinter
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this forum is too small to contain.
Best spoof post ever.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
:haripu:
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by midwinter
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this forum is too small to contain.
ooooh. now we are getting really nerdy here. an inside-joke for mathematicians!
     
Chris O'Brien
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hebburn, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesseract
1 + 1 = 1
Oh dear. That's what I get for posting after a night out drinking.
Just who are Britain? What do they? Who is them? And why?

Formerly Black Book
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Brass
Please reference your source or include the theorem and proof when making such profound sweeping statments.

I'd be interested to see some proof that shows a flaw in software generated from the following code:

Code:
#!/usr/bin/perl print "This software is not flawed!\n";
While your code above may not be flawed, all code depends on a fiendishly complex compiler/interpreter/firmware/IO system/etc. interaction to change it into machine readable data which will then be executed by the computer. Your code may not have an error as such, but how can you be assured that the way it interacts with EVERYTHING between you and the final user is exactly as it is supposed to be? And can you EXHAUSTIVELY detail ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that must be in place, and its specific state, for your code to work?

My statement about a mathematical proof comes from my own computer science classes; I do not have all the books anymore, but the basis of the argument is that any sufficiently complex system contains interactions that are not predictable because there are too many interactions to predict, let alone track.

The issue this thread started on was whether there were any viruses for OS X right now, and I pointed out that, no matter what, there must be some problems within the OS. Why? It's all about the complexity. What compiler was OS X compiled on? Who error checked the compiler? How many lines of code-and lines of machine code-were involved? It is not a matter of math, it's a matter of human limitations. In order to find a flaw, the searcher must not only know what a flaw IS but also what it COULD BE. Automated tools to find software flaws can only find what they're programmed for, so all they do is search more and faster than a person can. So there is no way to without ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER find all possible flaws in whatever code you're checking.

That software of any type MUST be less than perfect is axoimatic. There are hundreds of products on the market to help programmers avoid the basic problems like failing to check the bounds of a memory structure, or incorrectly dereferencing a memory token or variable, but these can only determine whether the code is written within the bounds of its human creators' concepts. Is the algorithm being coded perfect? Is the coding paradigm for that algorithm THE correct one? Is there any approximation being done in ANY portion of the program at all? It simply cannot be done perfectly. It all comes down to the fact that 99.999999999% perfection is also 0.000000001% flawed.

My assertion that there are flaws in OS X stands; it is humanly impossible to create perfection. However, it should also be noted that, as OS X is a product that was basically written from the ground up in the very recent past, and that it was based on very well tested and well examined code, it is an order of magnitude (or more) more robust than any Windows OS, which have all been pieced together from older pieces most of which have not been sufficiently examined for errors or flaws (the most common Windows error is a failure to enforce limits on buffer filling, which is a FINDABLE flaw-if they bothered to look).

Finally, here's a quote from a "Doctor Dobb's Journal" article headline that I think is illustrative:
Dr. Dobb's Windows Security
June 4, 2004
Programmer Defects as a Proactive Defense
No matter how bulletproof you make your code, you can never guarantee its security completely. Declaring that up front is the first step toward better software security

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by :haripu:
ooooh. now we are getting really nerdy here. an inside-joke for mathematicians!
Or us Computer Science students who are forced to take logic courses.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
midwinter
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by :haripu:
ooooh. now we are getting really nerdy here. an inside-joke for mathematicians!
Except I'm an English professor.
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2005, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
While your code above may not be flawed, all code depends on a fiendishly complex compiler/interpreter/firmware/IO system/etc. interaction to change it into machine readable data which will then be executed by the computer. Your code may not have an error as such, but how can you be assured that the way it interacts with EVERYTHING between you and the final user is exactly as it is supposed to be? And can you EXHAUSTIVELY detail ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that must be in place, and its specific state, for your code to work?
True, the code can be 100% foolproof. However it must go through a number of steps before it performs the action it is coded to do. If any of these stages are flawed, then the code will not execute correctly. It does not however mean that the original code is flawed.

Originally Posted by ghporter
it can be MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that all software MUST be flawed at some level and to some degree.
We must differentiate between flawed code and flawed software to make this statement.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,