|
Post by vidguysteve on Jun 29, 2008 13:35:44 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this lately (see three seconds), and an interesting conundrum arises.
People can make Hacking and Anti-Hacking software/Magic preventing and anti-Magic preventing spells.
That is not the issue.
What I'm thinking about is if someone made a project 30 Days long to hack, and if someone else made a project 20 to protect from hacking, it doesn't make sense that the anti-hacking should work perfectly.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't work at all, but an anti-hacking project that is weaker than the project trying to hack a machine shouldn't be able to completely protect it; it may be able to fight it a little bit, or make it take longer, but... y'know what I mean.
Anyone else agree?
|
|
|
Post by Yoshimaster on Jun 29, 2008 13:37:04 GMT -5
That makes total sense and is true in real war.
|
|
|
Post by IDNAU on Jun 29, 2008 13:37:40 GMT -5
Agreement. It should also work vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by bulbmin on Jun 29, 2008 14:19:55 GMT -5
Anti-Hacking is designed to beat hacking. Think Pokemon. Fire is super effective versus grass, so a weaker fire type can beat a stronger grass type. I think this should be the case with this, within reason.
|
|
|
Post by soulofhachi on Jun 29, 2008 14:47:27 GMT -5
I see things like anti-hacking or anti-magic as an equal opposing force, rather then something that is extra effective. Hacking is designed to get past defenses, and if anything, the hackers have always beaten security. The US government can't even keep its sites protected from Russian hackers.
|
|
|
Post by rydon7 on Jun 29, 2008 15:23:30 GMT -5
lolno Although the possibility to break any hacking defence is there, the better the defence the harder to hack. Using machines to guess every possible password (or just bypassing it altogether) can be done, but it can be made harder.
|
|
|
Post by vidguysteve on Jun 29, 2008 16:48:55 GMT -5
Anti-Hacking is designed to beat hacking. Think Pokemon. Fire is super effective versus grass, so a weaker fire type can beat a stronger grass type. I think this should be the case with this, within reason. See, the problem with that sort of thing like this is that someone can spend 30 Days on a Hacking program, but if someone did a shorter project on an anti-hacking program it would still work! If someone spent 50 Days on Bulletproof Armor, and someone else did a 20 Day Project for Armor-Piercing bullets, would they still penetrate despite the strength of the armor? If you want to think of it in terms of Pokemon, I think it's more like two Normal-types fighting, using only Tackle. And now, because it's looooong overdue, it's time for... [imagines in poorly drawn cartoon] Narrator: Trainer 1 sent out Level 5 Poopachu! Lvl 5 Poopachu: *random bleeps that are meant to be its call* Narrator: Trainer 2 sent out Level 99 Poopachu! Lvl 99 Poopachu: *similar yet still incomprehensible bleeps* Trainer 1: Go, Poopachu! Hit 'em with a Tackle! POOPACHU USED TACKLE! ENEMY POOPACHU TOOK 4 DAMAGE. Trainer 2: Go Poopachu! Hit 'em with a Tackle! POOPACHU USED TACKLE! ENEMY POOPACHU GOT IT'S ASS KICKED! [/imagination] You see? Rather than types, it's just a power struggle. Like tug-o'-war. You have three kids on one side of the rope, and two on the other side; each kid is of equal strength to eachother. Who's going to win? The one with three kids. Will the other side still put up a fight? Of course!
|
|
Makajawan
SMKW God of the Wars
The Fourth Forgoer
He's a Pirate
Posts: 5,285
|
Post by Makajawan on Jun 29, 2008 19:57:46 GMT -5
I agree with vidguy.
|
|
|
Post by Yoshimaster on Jun 29, 2008 21:14:54 GMT -5
lolno Although the possibility to break any hacking defence is there, the better the defence the harder to hack. Using machines to guess every possible password (or just bypassing it altogether) can be done, but it can be made harder. Who says you use passwords, you can code it, you can set up anti spyware and the like.
|
|