There has been so much written about computerization of software security that there is little left to say. It needs to be done on a daily basis by the average user and live with live updates by the company user. However, statistical studies are now showing that attacks are less successful than ever. The success rate has fallen in every year for the last 13 years. In the year ending 31/12/2014, there were less successful attacks than in any year since 2000 when thousands of websites and programs were re-evaluated because of the Y2K scare.
It is not the number of attacks but the number of victims that really counts. One successful attack on a credit card company can produce a million or five million potential victims. The number of successful identity thefts is expanding exponentially in the USA. The problem with security is that when ten million accounts are placed in jeopardy the holders of the account information are not liable to their millions of hosted accounts. They do not even have the responsibility to inform them. Indeed, they often cannot because they do not know how. Announcements in the press are virtually useless because so many card holders do not read newspapers and magazines–online or in paper–and even if they do might not be interested in something so arcane as a firewall breach of some company that they may have never heard of. The chain of ports and repositories and banks is long and enormous.
If ten to the eightieth power is generally considered to be the number of fundamental but not sub-atomic particles in the known universe, and we multiplied it by itself, would the product be random? Clearly not. It is a fixed or target number. There is no way to stop a number system at a random number without introducing a coefficient of error. Consequently, thinking through each number system to its mathematical-logical end is a necessary prerequisite to creating a random number; but placing an error in the number system is the sole way in which a close-to-random number is generated. Code breakers are looking for errors in systems, not consistency.
Normally, I would agree; however, there is a basic assumption about size having anything to do with coding complexity. abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz is a complex code that is virtually unbreakable.
Does anyone at your company have any relation to the new Yale or Princeton attempts at implementation of quantum error correction?
I came across your Universal Measurement website and wanted to let you know that we have decided to open our POWERFUL and PRIVATE web traffic system to the public for a limited time! You can sign up for our targeted traffic network with a free trial as we make this offer available again. If you need targeted traffic that is interested in your subject matter or products start your free trial today: http://stpicks.com/2rusd Unsubscribe here: http://stpicks.com/2ruse
I came to your Universal Measurement page and noticed you could have a lot more traffic. I have found that the key to running a website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your subject matter. We can send you targeted traffic and we let you try it for free. Get over 1,000 targeted visitors per day to your website. Check it out here: http://duckshop.co/1f1p Unsubscribe here: http://stpicks.com/2ruse
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.