Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security FullDisclosure
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Full-disclosure] Linux big bang theory....

Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Linux big bang theory....
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 12:48:34 -0400
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:42:46 +0200, Pavel Kankovsky said:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Vincent Archer wrote:

I don't have (and I doubt anybody around here can) the proof to make
this a theorem, but it is a good postulate:

- It is impossible to prove the integrity of a computing system from
within the same system.

From a theoretical POV, it might be possible do it with a program
requiring all memory of the tested system (*all* memory, including memory
occupied by existing data -- whether it is possible to reconstruct them
after the fact is a different question...) to compute a correct result.
Several difficult conditions would have to be satisfied:

I'm not sure that's sufficient - at first glance, it appears that "proving
the integrity" is a close relative of the Turing Halting problem.  So you have
to deal with all sorts of Turing/Godel issues.  I may be wrong, as I haven't
gotten much caffeine into me yet, but anytime you see the phrase "Prove
introspective result about X within system X", step 0 of the proof needs to
be something of the form "we can avoid Turing/Godel issues because...."

One important aspect that the system isn't just memory, it's the combination
of memory and architecture, which often means microcode.  So you also need
to prove the microcode isn't tweaked (and such a tweak could conceivably
include code of the form "if any attempt is made to examine the actual
microcode contents, immediately hide the existence of any backdoors". (quite
plausible, we've seen similar things done to prevent reverse-engineering by
running code inside a debugger).

But hey, if your computational-theory-foo is stronger than mine, feel free
to point out where I'm wrong...

Attachment: pgpiuLHNjonkC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>