[HN Gopher] Formally Verifying Industry Cryptography
___________________________________________________________________
Formally Verifying Industry Cryptography
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 21 points
Date : 2022-07-12 06:34 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.computer.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.computer.org)
| mbrodersen wrote:
| It's great to see that proving code correct is starting to make
| inroads into commercial software development. Perhaps the term
| "Software Engineer" should be reserved for software developers
| who have the training/skills to formally prove software correct?
| The same way that Engineers in other industries have the formal
| training/skills needed to use mathematical models to
| build/construct correctly?
| ebingdom wrote:
| As someone with years of experience writing machine-checked
| proofs in Coq, I cannot imagine the term "Software Engineer"
| shifting to that meaning, even though it may make sense when
| compared to other engineering disciplines. The programmers who
| have no experience with this technology outnumber us many
| thousands to one. They'd never sign off on it.
|
| That said, I'm all for anything that results in more
| appreciation for mathematical rigor in programming. It's like
| puling teeth trying to get colleagues to use tools/languages
| that help with reasoning about code (even just a good type
| system), and for a lot of programmers math seems to be an
| unapproachable alien language.
|
| One thing I'd like to change about the software industry is the
| perception that formal verification is too hard to do in
| practice because you can't even write down a complete
| specification for the program. The misconception there is that
| the all of the program's behavior needs to be specified in
| order for formal verification to be useful. Why can't gradual
| formal verification be a thing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-14 23:00 UTC)