Bernard Peek wrote:
On 26/02/12 20:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well thats uyouir knowelege limits and I have mine.

I know.

Let's say that if anyone has broken in they have left no trace and
altered nothing. Or I would *know*. Which makes it 'not compromised'

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Hint: there is no such thing as an undetectable change.

I'd like to see evidence for that assertion.

Are you really stupid?

If a change makes no difference to anything, ipso facto, it is not a
change. All changes therefore must make a difference, and are therefore
detectable.



I think it's probably true
but it's not relevant here because the issue at hand isn't undetectable
change, but undetected change. The two are different.



Right. Given two computers, how can you use one to tell if the others
disk content has changed?

I'll leave you to work it out.