61–70 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a proper sort. A sort is not just a function that takes in a list and returns a list that is sorted. The result must also include all of the elements that you had when starting. That property isn't checked by the code you linked.
Someone should calculate how many copies of the array you need (as a function of input data size) to make that sorting strategy work with reasonable assurance that the original data is maintained.
https://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Fixes_Bug_On_Voyag...
Considering bit flips were the leading theory for the changed key, I'm surprised it took that long to brute force test for the changed bit(s). Sure I dont know how long the key length was, I dont know how long the encrypted string was, but surely it wouldnt have taken that long to cycle through a number of flipped bits, or would it?
Assuming no miscommunication or subterfuge, perhaps it can be explained by a large number of bits flipped by a single ray and/or a preponderance of rays, each flipping a small number of bits. If the satellite's shielding design was poor, there could have been a lot of exposure from a single event, such as a solar flare.
Or perhaps just a single bit of code was flipped and it began writing to protected areas of memory.
Why is traffic from Voyager even encrypted? The results back are public scientific data anyway, right? And it's not like other nations (the only ones with power to transmit that far, back then) would send rogue commands without getting caught.
> it's not like other nations (the only ones with power to transmit that far, back then) would send rogue commands without getting caught. How would you catch them? Also, these spacecraft didn't start off outside the solar system. They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages.
Wouldn't they be monitoring whatever frequency it's using? I don't know much about how spacecraft worked in the 70s so maybe it's not practical.
> They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages.
That and what mlindner said is a good point. The start of the mission could've been easy to mess with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not like other nations (the only ones with power to transmit that far, back then) would send rogue commands without getting caught. How would you catch them? Also, these spacecraft didn't start off outside the solar system. They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages.
> How would you catch them? Wouldn't they be monitoring whatever frequency it's using? I don't know much about how spacecraft worked in the 70s so maybe it's not practical. > They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages. That and what mlindner said is a good point. The start of the mission could've been easy to mess with.
How would they? They have a huge directional dish antenna for communicating with the probe, they can't intercept every signal on 8 GHz, they would need an omnidirectional antenna which would catch a lot of noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not like other nations (the only ones with power to transmit that far, back then) would send rogue commands without getting caught. How would you catch them? Also, these spacecraft didn't start off outside the solar system. They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages.
> How would you catch them? Wouldn't they be monitoring whatever frequency it's using? I don't know much about how spacecraft worked in the 70s so maybe it's not practical. > They weren't always so far away that a lone prankster would have trouble sending them messages. That and what mlindner said is a good point. The start of the mission could've been easy to mess with.
Bit flips are scary even on Earth. At a previous job, we had a customer who suddenly couldn’t send us email anymore. When their IT sent us the server logs to “prove” it’s our fault, we saw that the one letter in the cached MX record was wrong. This was puzzling, until I looked at the ASCII table to verify that the difference was exactly one bit. We never found out where in the name resolution process the bit got flip…
I have super bivalent opinions about Intel. This is the opposite of ambivalent, it means heavily charged in both directions, but cancellation is not allowed. So that's why they should have let all their chips do ECC instead of making it a premium feature, it would have been better for their brand as "Chipzilla" and had no real cost. And it's dangerous! In fact a soft-error at sea level killed an operating system upda…
I mean, if you're at the level of manipulating the form of the word, that's already what "ambivalent" means. Strong in both directions. Bi- makes no sense as an opposite of ambi- since ambi- means "both", and bi- means "double". There is no negative element present in either word.
https://crypto.2012.rump.cr.yp.to/87d4905b6d2fbc6ad2389debb7...
There is also a video and a few more details here (starting at 47:38) in their longer CCC talk:
https://youtu.be/v_X0gUzGWsA?t=2858
(Slides for that longer talk: https://www.hyperelliptic.org/tanja/vortraege/facthacks-29C3...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gather DDR5 will have ECC as standard du to the extreme density of memory that will bitflip a lot more than usual. Yay fo r consumers.
DDR5 supports on-chip ECC but the extra parity bits we typically associate as "ECC" are still as optional as ever, motherboard manufacturers will still not bother to route those signals anyway, and Intel will still demand you give up overclocking and pay more for Xeon in order to use ECC sticks.
That's my point, a virtuous monopoly wouldn't do that. It would allow at least some way to have both. Especially since soft errors are easier with smaller transistors.