BioSec 2012: Cheryl: Difference between revisions
Dsouza3190 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dsouza3190 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
**Biology is so good because there aren’t two things that are really the same…they have a lot in common…but there is that one small aspect that sets them apart…if they were all the same then one small thing just wipes all of them out | **Biology is so good because there aren’t two things that are really the same…they have a lot in common…but there is that one small aspect that sets them apart…if they were all the same then one small thing just wipes all of them out | ||
**Can this be done with computers…randomize things by adding ''introns'' (junk code)? | **Can this be done with computers…randomize things by adding ''introns'' (junk code)? | ||
---- |
Revision as of 21:04, 23 April 2012
Trying to tie Computer Security into all of this
Using Darwin’s approach
- Really slow: it took biology billions of years to get to the efficiency it now is at. How are we supposed to compete with that?
- If we follow the same process we are setting up for failure most of the time…species getting extinct because they failed most of the time
- Species survival is highly dependent on environment…computer security needs to basically work all the time independent of its environment …how is this going to work?
So for things to work:
- there needs be a lot of redundant stuff:
- Genes – redundant ways to get an amino acid
- Genome – copies of the same genes
- Pathways – many regulators
- diversity
- Biology is so good because there aren’t two things that are really the same…they have a lot in common…but there is that one small aspect that sets them apart…if they were all the same then one small thing just wipes all of them out
- Can this be done with computers…randomize things by adding introns (junk code)?