Diebold Fumbles Attempt to Stop HBO Airing of 'Hacking Democracy'!

[Prakosh]

I think he means that VB is an anomoly that works just as you said it did; then he went on to describe how it differed from the earlier description because unlike the earlier programs he described VB actually assembles (compiles) the run langauge at runtime thus the program and the source code are the same thing. Sort of ingenious actually. I just wonder what the down side is to this kind of operation. There must be something that prevents most from using this kind of platform (is it a platform?).

Anyway, I almost understood what he was saying here in an abstract srt of way although I don't know what some of the words mean or refer to.

Scarey!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I think he means that VB is an anomoly that works just as you said it did; then he went on to describe how it differed from the earlier description because unlike the earlier programs he described VB actually assembles (compiles) the run langauge at runtime thus the program and the source code are the same thing. Sort of ingenious actually. I just wonder what the down side is to this kind of operation. There must be something that prevents most from using this kind of platform (is it a platform?).

Anyway, I almost understood what he was saying here in an abstract srt of way although I don't know what some of the words mean or refer to.

Scarey!

You did understand it quite well, since it only exists in an abstact way.

Sorry, LadyT, my bad. Too much jargon for no good reason. Prakosh is exactly right: VB -- Visual Basic, for the uninitiated -- is an atypical language. In VB, it's very difficult to tell the difference between "source code" and the actual program. In most languages, however, there is a distinct difference between the source code, on the one hand, and the program generated from it, on the other. Source code is written by human beings and can be read by human beings -- or by nerds like me, anyway, if not human beings proper. A compiled program, however, can't be "read" by a human being. We can't get inside it and see what it's really doing. It's a "black box" as we say: data go in and other data come out, and we have to trust that the programmers have done a good job and the data coming out are correct.

You can see the difference for yourself quite easily. It sounds like you've got VB files on your box. Excuse me: on your computer's hard drive. You can right-click on such a file, select "Edit" and read it's contents, yes? Try that with the Micro$oft Word exe file, however, and you can't. Word is a compiled application and can't be read in the same way.

 

[LadyT]

You did understand it quite well, since it only exists in an abstact way.

Sorry, LadyT, my bad. Too much jargon for no good reason. Prakosh is exactly right: VB -- Visual Basic, for the uninitiated -- is an atypical language. In VB, it's very difficult to tell the difference between "source code" and the actual program. In most languages, however, there is a distinct difference between the source code, on the one hand, and the program generated from it, on the other. Source code is written by human beings and can be read by human beings -- or by nerds like me, anyway, if not human beings proper. A compiled program, however, can't be "read" by a human being. We can't get inside it and see what it's really doing. It's a "black box" as we say: data go in and other data come out, and we have to trust that the programmers have done a good job and the data coming out are correct.

You can see the difference for yourself quite easily. It sounds like you've got VB files on your box. Excuse me: on your computer's hard drive. You can right-click on such a file, select "Edit" and read it's contents, yes? Try that with the Micro$oft Word exe file, however, and you can't. Word is a compiled application and can't be read in the same way.

ahhh, got it. thnx

 

[uscitizen]

VB compiles as well. So the intrepretive language part can be considered the source code if it is compiled.

 

[TRGLDTE]

That's not a confession any more than admitting you can't do Cabalistic numerology in your head is a confession.

"Source code" refers to the code, written by programmers, from which the final application (program) is compiled. The compiled program can't be "opened up" and read. Source code can. Actually, most apps can be decompiled and their source code at least partially reconstructed, but that's a separate issue: let's not muddy the water.

"Encryption keys" are *used by* the application when it's running to encrypt data. Encrypted data can't be decrypted and read without having the (same) encryption key. Theoretically -- some encryptions schemes are better than others.

The encryption keys must remain secret. There's no argument there. The source code, however, can be reviewed without risk . . . provided the application is properly designed in the first place.

So-called "open source" software is traditionally more secure than (most) privately produces software, not less secure.

Most good encryption algorithms use a "many-to-one" mapping strategy. That is, the end result of the encryption can be generated from any one of many inputs. Mathematically that means I can't invert the encrytion output to determine the input - it yields an indeterminate and insoluable equation - unless I have information on the "key". Thus the need for secrecy with resprct to the key.