Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (17331)	5/13/2003 10:52:53 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

re: Sorry, but you're the technological moron. only technological?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (17331)	5/13/2003 10:54:14 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

BE, Well if you're in the industry, I'm shocked at your complete inability to communicate in English. Perhaps your real talents lie in hex? I asked you a damn simple question, how can a properly supervised public advocate hack a proprietary software code? Your answer was about as informative as I'd expect to get from a befuddled second grader.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (17331)	5/13/2003 11:23:42 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

if someone knows the code of a program, it would be much easier to hack into it and change things It may be easier to change things, but not to hack it. Implied in hacking or cracking the code is the intent to keep the breach of security secret. This is best done by reverse engineering since the hacker does not get confused by what the code is supposed to do, but must consentrate on what it actually does. The breach is much easier to conceal if there are few people who are familiar with the code. Open source code must be more secure because so many people, good or bad, point out the flaws. TP (With 30+ years of programming experience including many in code verification and financial security)