![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beamjockeyI can't recall in whose Livejournal I read about Richard Carrigan's recent paper. He speculates about the dangers of inimical software possibly buried in SETI signals.
All the discussion on the Web seems to be coming from an article in The Guardian.
You can read more about his ideas in "Do Potential SETI Signals Need to Be Decontaminated?" (it's in Word *.doc format).
At least two scenarios need to be considered in protecting against a malevolent SETI Hacker signal. One is a computer virus in the message that takes over the computer at the receiver. The other is an open message that gives an impenetrable software code or instructions for a hardware translator to handle an opaque message. Both cases are dangerous. The damage may be done before the receiver appreciates that it is under attack. This is the current experience even with earth-based hacker attacks. There may not be an opportunity to pull the signal out of the computer or turn off the power before the intruding signal has taken over.
It is an open question whether an earth-based computer virus can penetrate a computer if it is not familiar with the operating system. The computer and computer security experts I have discussed this with don’t think it is possible. The argument goes that viruses typically enter a computer by exploiting known features in the operating system. Further, experts argue, typical computer operating systems are quite idiosyncratic so that it can be difficult to analyze their structure from a logical point of view.
However, it seems worthwhile to approach the question with an open mind. For example, one could set up a thought or even a practical test with a primitive “toy” computer, perhaps modeled along the lines of the first Illiac and have programmers unfamiliar with the Illiac system try to hack the program. I believe it would also be useful to convene a workshop with diverse participants to discuss the subject in some detail. This might be coupled with broader discussions on the topic of denaturing ETI signals.
All the discussion on the Web seems to be coming from an article in The Guardian.
You can read more about his ideas in "Do Potential SETI Signals Need to Be Decontaminated?" (it's in Word *.doc format).
At least two scenarios need to be considered in protecting against a malevolent SETI Hacker signal. One is a computer virus in the message that takes over the computer at the receiver. The other is an open message that gives an impenetrable software code or instructions for a hardware translator to handle an opaque message. Both cases are dangerous. The damage may be done before the receiver appreciates that it is under attack. This is the current experience even with earth-based hacker attacks. There may not be an opportunity to pull the signal out of the computer or turn off the power before the intruding signal has taken over.
It is an open question whether an earth-based computer virus can penetrate a computer if it is not familiar with the operating system. The computer and computer security experts I have discussed this with don’t think it is possible. The argument goes that viruses typically enter a computer by exploiting known features in the operating system. Further, experts argue, typical computer operating systems are quite idiosyncratic so that it can be difficult to analyze their structure from a logical point of view.
However, it seems worthwhile to approach the question with an open mind. For example, one could set up a thought or even a practical test with a primitive “toy” computer, perhaps modeled along the lines of the first Illiac and have programmers unfamiliar with the Illiac system try to hack the program. I believe it would also be useful to convene a workshop with diverse participants to discuss the subject in some detail. This might be coupled with broader discussions on the topic of denaturing ETI signals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 03:15 pm (UTC)