3 ms·
Thanks for catching my mistake, I was referring to the first link when I said it "requires the prior knowledge of a bug hit rate". I think you've misread the r
by dimino 10y ago
Thanks for catching my mistake, I was referring to the first link when I said it "requires the prior knowledge of a bug hit rate".
I think you've misread the report, as there weren't independent groups, it was two people from QuarksLab who performed the audit. Right there on page 6, the page you cite. There weren't multiples of the same bugs found by these two people in the report (why would they both report it?), OCAP phase I and II weren't done on VeraCript, and James Forshaw hasn't looked at VeraCrypt at all. This was E1. There is no E2.
The alternative methods for determining bugs are all as flawed in this context as the one you've weirdly chosen to champion, the Lincoln index. What other specific method would you like to attempt to apply here? I'll gladly walk you through why it won't make sense in this context.
I'll say it again: I never said there were no more bugs. You've built this strawman because it's easy to dismantle, however it isn't real.
What I asked was, as you've quoted, "If there were more bugs, why weren't they found?" This draws an important line between the theoretical and the actual; the accusation of bugginess can be levied at any program. It is of no use or value to anyone to say such vague things as, "VeraCrypt may have more bugs!" Of course it could, that's a worthless statement. What's valuable is actually demonstrating those bugs.
It's painfully clear you didn't actually understand the report, and you quote me twice, despite admitting you didn't understand the quoted text.
I'll repeat here for you: I don't think and never said there are no remaining bugs in VeraCrypt, I do however believe it is useless to essentially exclaim to everyone that VeraCrypt is a piece of software (that's what you're doing when you're saying it might have other bugs).
If there are other bugs, where are they? Surely you can find them if you know they exist.
- ChrisLomont 10y ago>Thanks for catching my mistake, I was referring to the first link when I said it "requires the prior knowledge of a bug hit rate". Odd, since the rest of that sentence discussed a blog post, and the first link is a Wikipedia article, while the second is a blog post. Nothing in the German Tank problem corresponds to prior knowledge of a rate of any kind. The word "rate" does not even appear on the page. It does appear in the blog post. Your repeated intellectual dishonesty makes further discussion pointless. You are bizarrely resistant to admit there is an entire field called software defect estimation, or that future trends for bugs are not independent with current bugs. I give up like everyone else in your thread.
- dimino 10y agoI honestly don't even think you know what I'd be wrong about, since you said you don't know the meaning of the comment you disagreed with.