Cybersecurity 204: Interpreters vs. Compilers vs. Wetware
What's the difference between interpreter and compiler when programming for security risk? Method does wetware utilize to "compile" or "interpret"? Is compiled code secure with wetware in the middle?
Interpreter Code processed by Software (e.g. virtual register machines, virtual compilers). Compiler code processed by Hardware (think Assembly x86 or C or C#. So why is interpreter code insecure by nature? Because it is always being interpreted and if a data-in-the-flow or cyberhacker attack is made on the interpreter or virtual machines running the interpretation of the code things can go amuck rapidly, think Code-in-the-Middle attack, like a Man-in-the-Middle attack for data communications and networking.
Compiler code, literally converts what is typed into binary for hardware CPU or GPU processing. I’m grateful to have learned how to program and code arrays in Assembly x86 with a solid foundation in programming, compared to people entering the industry over past decade that have to ferret out a bunch of “abstracted” insecure code and systems from the secure systems at Assembly x86 level.
Now with wetware (e.g. neurotechnology enabled by synthetic biology) there is an additional layer between reality and compiled and interpreted programming languages. Therefore, think of the ability of wetware to “enable” codexes in your perceived reality. So, what type of code is processed by Wetware, e.g. non-invasively dosed Brain Machine Interface niBMI?
Interpreter based programming languages run line by line, iteratively (sequentially) and when a line of code is read it is translated into “bytecode”. The “bytecode” is higher level machine language, but not binary, and also goes by the name of pcode and portable code. The “bytecode” is ran by software. Think of it like XML almost, but not quite the same, for those familiar with XML. It has nested instructions sets in it. Bytecode is the result of compiler parsing and performing semantic analysis of things like type, scope, and nesting depths of program objects.
Compiled based programming languages are compiled (the entire codebase) and that is machine specific (x86 architecture for Assembly RISC or CISC chip architecture, x32, x64bit, etc.). The output of which is in binary 0s or 1s.
Wetware based programming languages are quantum based when a hybrid neural network of synthetic biology is integrated into a biological neuronal network. The compiling and interpretation of this codebase is a lot more chaotic than interpreter based languages or compiler based languages, as it is is directly effected by the environment, should it contain other wetware edge compute devices. This technology used to be well-defined, before weapons were released with self-replicating nanotechnology that adulterates pre-existing wetware non-replicating non-invasively dosed networks.
Therefore, for secure code, the use of compiler code is required by a person that does not have “wetware” contamination, such that the source code of the compiled code is compromised. Yes, that’s correct, the use of wetware can even compromise secure compiled code by logging the source code (even though there are tools to reverse out source code from compiled code). Even further, secure source code can be contaminated by programmers that are “contaminated” with wetware (mesogens, graphenes and nanotech) such that backdoors are coded literally by the programmers due to the “contamination” from the wetware. Think of it this way, programmer is coding away, and instead of calling some library X, the programmer calls library Z, but it appears in the mind to the programmer that library X was called. This is why code review by separate sites is required to eliminate these types of neurohacks. Why do you think the federal government has sister FFRDCs that duplicate some of the work? The public answer is to prevent “group think” and was the original 100% truth, but now it also serves as a counter neuroweapon validation and verification.
References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytecode