3 ms·

They're talking about an obfuscation that's provably strong - i.e. there is no way to de-obfuscate the code, not even in a million years. You're talking about

by Nimi 13y ago

They're talking about an obfuscation that's provably strong - i.e. there is no way to de-obfuscate the code, not even in a million years. You're talking about an obfuscation that's "good enough for the real world" - i.e. it will take a very skilled person several years to de-obfuscate. Also, their result is very theoretic, and too slow to be deployed in the real world, at least for the next couple of years. See my other comment if you're interested. BTW - I think by "mystery" they meant "open computational problem". Kind of a mystery if you think about it :-)

freyr 13y ago
"there is no way to de-obfuscate the code, not even in a million years." Perhaps you're just being hyperbolic, but can you qualify this statement? Is it not possible in a million years given today's technology (this seems unlikely, even the marketing material suggested 100 years)? Or are you claiming there is mathematical proof that advances in computational power, a growing body of knowledge about de-obfuscation, etc., will not break this approach?
- Nimi 13y ago
  The latter - there is mathematical proof that advances in computational power, a growing body of knowledge about de-obfuscation, etc., will not break this approach. Also, this is not "marketing material" - nobody is selling this technology, and likely nobody will in the foreseeable future. They're just trying to interest the general public in a major theoretical CS breakthrough.
  - freyr 13y ago
    I wasn't aware such a proof existed, that's very cool. But it's certainly marketing material. They're selling UCLA's engineering department to potential students, potential sponsors, and the general public. That's not a bad thing. Universities would be stupid not to promote their brand and their professors' achievements.
    - Nimi 13y ago
      Minor caveat: the proof says something along the lines of "to de-obfuscate this code, you must be able to find the prime factors of insanely huge numbers, and we assume no one knows how to do that". So it's a bit inaccurate to say that "no advancement will solve this".

by Nimi 13y ago

freyr 13y ago

"there is no way to de-obfuscate the code, not even in a million years." Perhaps you're just being hyperbolic, but can you qualify this statement? Is it not possible in a million years given today's technology (this seems unlikely, even the marketing material suggested 100 years)? Or are you claiming there is mathematical proof that advances in computational power, a growing body of knowledge about de-obfuscation, etc., will not break this approach?

Nimi 13y ago
The latter - there is mathematical proof that advances in computational power, a growing body of knowledge about de-obfuscation, etc., will not break this approach. Also, this is not "marketing material" - nobody is selling this technology, and likely nobody will in the foreseeable future. They're just trying to interest the general public in a major theoretical CS breakthrough.
- freyr 13y ago
  I wasn't aware such a proof existed, that's very cool. But it's certainly marketing material. They're selling UCLA's engineering department to potential students, potential sponsors, and the general public. That's not a bad thing. Universities would be stupid not to promote their brand and their professors' achievements.
  - Nimi 13y ago
    Minor caveat: the proof says something along the lines of "to de-obfuscate this code, you must be able to find the prime factors of insanely huge numbers, and we assume no one knows how to do that". So it's a bit inaccurate to say that "no advancement will solve this".