Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Security Programming on Distant Devices

Some on programming and security:
Classically, USA demonstrates this huge energy-generator that they set to destroy by a programmable interface and by destructive programming the generator is destroyed.
Well, this may be a counter-solution.
Given that the object-side of the programming is set by a physical code, much like MAC-address or SIM-card, but not necessarily.
This goes by a _secure_ ISP and is serviced by an operator, of course.
The service-side can designate the object-side's address and vice versa, and only this way, the two addresses being strict and the object-side's device may be strictly set only by the programming, silently dropping idiot-packages. Thus, the object-side's device is strictly programmed with its own masked code so that C++ becomes C++ custom, unrecognisable to C++ programmers, certainly not possible to program by C++ programming language.
In addition, the signals going to and from the object-side's device can be coded with a wildly generated, arbitrarily chosen algorithm, "broken" or not, akin to
printed codes on cards!
So let the crack-heads chew this for a while and let's have a safer world, please! Cheers!

Note: it may be that Blackberry operates its own ISP on "generic"/"open" networks so that they can guarantee a special set of security mechanisms to their customers,
gaining also phone traffic income.

Added today, as opposed to making this a comment: C+ is really C++. I've just been away from it for too long. (Although, I probably would deserve a beer over my head with the guys at the pub.) This set-up is based on custom made service-side to object-side software and is of course that hardware that is supposed to serve some device of this or that nature, like the generator. I have at least seen C-programming being used on the net and I claim to know (with Ajax or embedded code or something) that it's just a matter of sending the instruction-code from a sender to a receiver. This is special for such code, but it's possible because one can make it custom code for both sender's software and receiver's software/hardware (eg. the generator). Good? (I guess much better now.)

1 comment:

  1. I've corrected the awful C+ to the correct C++ just now! Sorry again.