discussion: LLL and Security
Johan Van Schalkwyk
Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:36:54 +1300 (NZDT)
On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> There is a big problem with a LLL: Security. [...]
> be ok may be more difficult to prove as computing the argument; i.e.
> requiring that the argument be a prime number or any such thing).
Erm  I don't think its difficult, I think it's _impossible_ to be
certain (Analogy, it's not always possible to determine whether a
particular program will even _terminate_, let alone whether it will screw
the system). You could also spice this with a bit of Godel, if you wish,
and sorry about the neglected umlaut!
> All such things can't be expressed in a *low-level* language. A low-level
> * external object specifications in a high-level specification language are
> given with the low-level equivalents
Erm  If the hi-lang has corresponding lo-lang specs, for whom/what are
we providing the hi-level specs ?
Or am I being a complete twit?
PS. Erm  Shouldn't we be talking turkey, not the first metatarsal of
the third leg of the fourth Demodex mite in the left nostril of the turkey?