Self limitation for safety: Difference between revisions

From apm
Jump to navigation Jump to search
added links to yet unwritten pages
added illustrative image
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Template:Stub}}
{{Template:Stub}}
[[File:Ugility fog chair attacks by MCKIBILLO.png|300px|thumb|right|If objects are made form specialized [[gem-gum|gemstone based metamaterials]] rather than [[utility fog]] then they fundamentally can't be hacked to do direct malicious surprise attacks. Just a self suggesting example here.]]


* [[Mobility prevention guideline]]
* [[Mobility prevention guideline]]

Revision as of 20:04, 23 December 2024

This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.
If objects are made form specialized gemstone based metamaterials rather than utility fog then they fundamentally can't be hacked to do direct malicious surprise attacks. Just a self suggesting example here.

Against software hacking:

  • Usage of specialised and in function limited metamaterials instead of general purpouse utility fog (e.g. shelving systems).

Against direct physical hacking attacks:

  • Combination lock stones as a safety measure against malicious disassebly attacks are metioned here.
  • Integrated oszillators as physical timer to artificially slow down the disassembly of microcomponents - this allows for more response time.

Other:

Related