Chicken will always win lmao l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l
The reality is that hackers will always be ahead of software security since they only need to find one way into a program and the software developers and engineers have find a way to patch every possible hole and weakness in a program and its interaction with other programs and applications on the Internet.
The trouble with security software is that, by and large, it must by design be reactive: responsive to existent threats in ways that most strongly benefit a vast variety of end users. Conversely, hackers have all the free time and resources they desire to be proactive in their quest to bypass security software, steal information and identities, and generally interfere with the order of society. Unless software can adapt and evolve by itself - a challenge that may prove enormously difficult, if not insurmountable, for a machine - then human hackers will most certainly remain ahead of security.
Hackers will always be one step ahead, or at the very least on par with software security because there are good programmers on both sides. In fact, a number of software security professionals started off as hackers and software security professionals must be able to write viruses in order to test the efficacy of their software. There have also been disillusioned security professionals that became hackers. This is true of any kind of legislated human behavior, though - there are good people on both sides of the law and there is movement back and forth across the line.
Software security cannot be ahead of hackers, because the software security industry is always reacting to threats that hackers expose. Software security companies would not be in business if it was not for hackers. Once hackers expose a flaw or threat in software programs, then the security companies try to block the threat or threats by providing new updates for existing software security or develop new ones. Either way, hackers will be one step ahead, because the software security industry cannot predict what new threat the hackers will unleash on any given day.
Without a doubt, software security is going to continue to be a "cat and mouse" game between software developers, companies, and hackers (be they domestic "kids in their basement" or hostile foreign governments participating in officially sanctioned cyber-warfare activities). Due to the nature of cryptography, security practices, and information systems as a whole, as time goes on, new vulnerabilities are uncovered by the security community at large. As technology progresses, new methods of securing systems will develop- but also new methods of breaking into them. Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be- but through responsible disclosure, research and adherence to ethical standards, these issues can be worked out. However, all it takes is one "bad apple" so to speak and "hackers" will undoubtedly still have an advantage, even decades from now as information systems continue to take hold over nearly every aspect of our 21st century lives. Thus, as the cat and mouse games continue between these two dialectically contradicted forces, it will be the "hackers" that keep the security community up at night- much like it is today.
There are two things about humans which amuse me. First is the fact that the vast majority are spooked very easily by conspiracies when in fact they are in more danger from other elements that are more common. The second is that the vast majority of "wrongdoers" are doing it wrong; most "hacking" is actually not hacking at all and requires the computer literacy of an 8-year-old. Bruteforcing, phishing scams, and even most viruses really require the end user to be compliant and make things easy enough for the hacker; for instance a strong 16 character password of randomized elements is not something most bruteforce programs will crack so without a keylogger of some sort there's no entry point. That's presuming the keylogger itself isn't just total crap.
Which brings me back to point #1 where humans throw fits about dangers that aren't real; hacking your computer system is probably not an astoundingly difficult feat, it's not set up correctly to repel an attack, it's likely you bring the attack to yourself (viruses are executables for instance), and it's unlikely anything truly malicious (like worms) are being used. So in order to outdo the hacker of the modern day all you need is the skills of a 9-year-old.
Most "hacking" has nothing to do with what you see in movies. It's reading code till you close your eyes and see only text and then being clever enough to spot where the programmer has not been clever enough. You find the fault in another one's logic and you are in.
This question is rather absurd, if you understand how hacking works, because the only thing that matters, is on which end the more clever person is sitting. And that is pretty much chance.
Some of the best hackers, who don't get arrested, become the next software security workers, looking for loop-holes is software that could lead to potential threats or security compromises. It's really bold to say anything will always be true, so I have to disagree with them always being one step ahead of software security. So the question is, will the hackers always be one step ahead of themselves?