Page 1 of 1

Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2026 5:28 am
by Phil8659
Although it is possible to make security improbable to breach, due to complexity, it is, by first principles of information, impossible to make anything secure using grammar.

Why is that? Let me lay it out for you, and see if you can see the conclusion.

There are two, and only two types of identity, as there are two and only two parts of speech.
As Plato observed, a long time ago, the perceptible can never be the intelligible, nor can the intelligible ever be the perceptible. In one expression, the point is that which has no part, in another, the map is not the territory, and again, a noun is not a verb.

Information processing is grammar. Grammar can never be ungrammatical, that is grammar can never be different from itself. And as all information is simply binary processing, binary recursion can only produce a binary result.
Grammar is the preservation and utilization of memory. The memory of a thing is not the thing of which it is the memory of.
Thus, the common claim that one can make identity from grammar is a fallacy.
As there are two types of equality, there are two types of identity. The perceptible identity can never be the intelligible identity and the intelligible identity can never be the perceptible identity.

So, the simple minded will always believe that grammar can be secured from itself; that is a self referential fallacy.
The claim that corporations make that your information can be made secure solely using grammar, passwords, digital mapping, etc., is actually a lie. So when corporations like Microsoft do everything in their power to make air gapping your system impossible, it is because they know the truth, and that is why they tell you that they are securing your information, when that is not possible, they are deliberately lying to you knowing that the common individual is too stupid to figure out that there is no grammar system which can produce a perceptible absolute. Microsoft is preaching Harry Potter Security solutions.

Re: Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2026 4:41 pm
by MikeNovack
I would use "math" to prove this rather than gibberish about grammars (unclear how related to any specific cyber security issue). Thus:

"it is impossible to have a "virus checker program" that will answer correctly (for ALL programs) "if run, will this program act like a virus?" If asked to prove this, I would utilize Turing's proof for the "halting problem" << just substitute the behavior "act like a virus" for "enter an endless loop" >>

Re: Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2026 5:41 pm
by Phil8659
MikeNovack wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 4:41 pm I would use "math" to prove this rather than gibberish about grammars (unclear how related to any specific cyber security issue). Thus:

"it is impossible to have a "virus checker program" that will answer correctly (for ALL programs) "if run, will this program act like a virus?" If asked to prove this, I would utilize Turing's proof for the "halting problem" << just substitute the behavior "act like a virus" for "enter an endless loop" >>
At least your lack of reading comprehension is fairly consistent. Might want to take some grammar tutoring.

Re: Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2026 8:32 pm
by MikeNovack
MikeNovack wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 4:41 pm I would use "math" to prove this rather than gibberish about grammars (unclear how related to any specific cyber security issue). Thus:

"it is impossible to have a "virus checker program" that will answer correctly (for ALL programs) "if run, will this program act like a virus?" If asked to prove this, I would utilize Turing's proof for the "halting problem" << just substitute the behavior "act like a virus" for "enter an endless loop" >>
But notice that was showing a PERFECT virus checker impossible. Not that a PRACTICAL one impossible. If the proposed checker is allowed to be sometimes wrong, that impossibility proof falls apart. Wrong in what way. Why either be sometimes failing to identify a virus OR by a false positive. The former is dangerous, a security breach. The latter may or may not be. IF the percentage of false positives is low enough, practical security. No viruses missed AND the warning not going to be ignored. But if the percentage of false positives is very high, it's the boy who cried wolf problem.

NOBODY is claiming to provide complete security. Not in their "fine print".

Re: Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2026 10:16 pm
by Phil8659
MikeNovack wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 8:32 pm
MikeNovack wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 4:41 pm I would use "math" to prove this rather than gibberish about grammars (unclear how related to any specific cyber security issue). Thus:

"it is impossible to have a "virus checker program" that will answer correctly (for ALL programs) "if run, will this program act like a virus?" If asked to prove this, I would utilize Turing's proof for the "halting problem" << just substitute the behavior "act like a virus" for "enter an endless loop" >>
But notice that was showing a PERFECT virus checker impossible. Not that a PRACTICAL one impossible. If the proposed checker is allowed to be sometimes wrong, that impossibility proof falls apart. Wrong in what way. Why either be sometimes failing to identify a virus OR by a false positive. The former is dangerous, a security breach. The latter may or may not be. IF the percentage of false positives is low enough, practical security. No viruses missed AND the warning not going to be ignored. But if the percentage of false positives is very high, it's the boy who cried wolf problem.

NOBODY is claiming to provide complete security. Not in their "fine print".
Maybe you do not know the difference between assertion and denial. Try actual reading.

Re: Why cyber security is impossible

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2026 4:51 pm
by Phil8659
To put it simply, relation to self is inadmissible.

Arithmetic is also a binary grammar Who would claim that one can find a result that arithmetic cannot, itself find?

You can make the math so complicated that a human would not put for the effort to duplicate it, but that does not make it secure against itself. It is secure against a person's patience, not itself.