> Tough luck for GNU.
I'm sure they'll be very happy with that answer.
> How? Easy enough: A Turing machine is vulnerable to the halting
> problem only because it can be encapsulated within a Universal Turing
> Machine.
I think you need to explain this more carefully... all your explanation
seems to imply is that if Java is insecure then I can write trojans which
will pass a verifier but trash your computer when run. I don't see that it
implies anything about whether or not it *is* secure.
> > And how exactly do you prove there are no flaws in the implementation?
> > Plenty have been found and exploited already, and more will be.
> How do you prove that there are no chocolate cakes in the Asteroid belt,
You're the one claiming that Java is secure (and as I said, I agree that
it is in theory if it has no I/O access), now you're saying that you can't
prove that any real implementation of Java is secure. Theoretical security
is irrelevant if in practice it includes bugs that allow hackers to erase
my hard disk.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.c2.org/~mark MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|