3 ms·
"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 po
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoMinor 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".