Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not prime”

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by Filligree on Monday February 01, 2016 @02:49PM (#11014811)

Keep up the tests until you have ten or twenty nines of certainty. I'd call that proof.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by baby on Monday February 01, 2016 @03:37PM (#11015192)

then you should re-read the definition of a proof.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by jibalt on Wednesday February 03, 2016 @02:25PM (#11028952)

It's clear that you haven't read it at all:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

The fact of the matter is that the sort of Platonic definition of proof that you fantasize is impossible because it depends on certainty, which itself cannot be proven. The best we can do is fail to find an error in an alleged proof.

Consider the proofreader's paradox: A proofreader can be prepared to swear, for any given page of a 1000 page book, that there are no typos on that page, but no proofreader is so foolish as to claim that there are no typos in the book.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by Filligree on Monday February 01, 2016 @07:59PM (#11016993)

What more are you hoping for?

Given a mathematical proof, the chance of an error in the proof is vastly larger than 10^-20.

[ Parent | on HN ]