11 ms·
The headline is what I take issue with. Calling it hacker-proof just because it's formally verified is wrong.
by CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
The headline is what I take issue with. Calling it hacker-proof just because it's formally verified is wrong.
- thingexplainer 10y ago"Formal verification makes your code invulnerable against a very specific (though very powerful) attacker"
- nickpsecurity 10y agoYeah, they really need to knock that off. Formal verification creates hard-to-hack code is still a decent headline. Or "Researchers using formal verification stopped hackers in their tracks." That's entirely accurate plus can be followed by specifics to understand what context it was true and what contexts it might be true elsewhere. Hacker-proof is just going to hurt branding of formal methods the second a hacker takes out a high-assurance system. Whereas, the formal methods and high-assurance literature written by anyone with sense acknowledges plenty of assumptions that might be targeted plus just human error. Even the people they quote in the article don't say it's hacker-proof!