February 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Key Vanishes: Scientist Outlines Unbreakable Code
by An Metet 26 Feb '01

26 Feb '01

By GINA KOLATA http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/science/20CODE.html?pagewanted=all A computer science professor at Harvard says he has found a way to send coded messages that cannot be deciphered, even by an all-powerful adversary with unlimited computing power. And, he says, he can prove it. If he is right, and he does have some supporters, his code may be the first that is both practical and provably secure. While there are commercially available coding systems that seem very hard to break, no one can prove that they cannot be cracked, mathematicians say. In essence, the researcher, Dr. Michael Rabin and his Ph.D. student Yan Zong Bing, have discovered a way to make a code based on a key that vanishes even as it is used. While they are not the first to have thought of such an idea, Dr. Rabin says that never before has anyone been able to make it both workable and to prove mathematically that the code cannot be broken. "This is the first provably unbreakable code that is really efficient," Dr. Rabin said. "We have proved that the adversary is helpless." Dr. Richard Lipton, a computer science professor at Princeton, who is visiting this year at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said, "It's like in the old `Mission Impossible,' where the message blows up and disappears." Someone who uses one of today's commercially available coding systems, Dr. Lipton explained, uses the same key Q mathematical formulas for encoding and decoding Q over and over. Eventually, they may be forced, perhaps by a court order, to give up the key. Or the key may be stolen. But with Dr. Rabin's system, the message stays secret forever because the code uses a stream of random numbers that are plugged into the key for encoding and decoding. The numbers are never stored in a computer's memory, so they essentially vanish as the message is being encrypted and decrypted. "If someone walks into my office with a court order or if they put a gun to my head they still could not read my conversations," Dr. Lipton said. In a sense, say some mathematicians and computer scientists, Dr. Rabin may have solved the ultimate problem in cryptography, one that has driven research for centuries: finding a provably unbreakable code that is also practical. But, they say, the paradox is that the discovery has come at a time of vigorous debate over whether such a code will make much difference in keeping communications private. Some say that a provably unbreakable code could have profound effects, keeping secret messages secret forever. But others say that codes today are already so good that there is little to be gained by making them provably, rather than just probably, unbreakable. For now, Dr. Rabin's idea is simply a scheme backed up by a mathematical proof that he has been presenting to scientists at seminars. No company is lurking in the background to sell it, and Dr. Rabin says he has no commercial interests in it. "I never commercialize anything," Dr. Rabin said. "I am not in that business." Instead, he said, he did the work because it was a challenge. Dr. Rabin's idea is simplicity itself, at least in the world of encryption. Previous coding methods rely for their security on the limitations of computing power. They assume that if breaking a code requires enough calculations, even the best computers will not be able to do it. But, Dr. Rabin said, there is no proof that such codes are secure. Their security hinges on the belief that no one will find a shortcut to doing the calculations. It is always possible that such a shortcut exists, waiting to be discovered by a clever mathematician. Dr. Rabin relies instead on the limits of memory banks in computers. No matter how powerful a computer is, no computer can store an unlimited amount of data. And yet that is what is required for an eavesdropper to break his code. The coding starts with a continuously generated string of random numbers, say from a satellite put up to broadcast them or from some other source. The numbers can be coming by at an enormous speed Q 10 million million per second, for example. The sender of a message and its recipient agree to start plucking a sequence of numbers from that string. They may agree, for example, to send a message, encoded with any of today's publicly available encryption systems saying "start" and giving instructions on capturing certain of the random numbers. As they capture the numbers, the sender uses them to encode a message, and the recipient uses the numbers to decode it. An eavesdropper can know the mathematical formula used to encode and decode, but without knowing the exact sequence of random numbers that were used in the formula to send a particular message, the eavesdropper cannot decode the message. And the only way to have that sequence is to just happen to be storing numbers from the unending stream at exactly the right moment. If the eavesdropper, for example, had a secret way to decode the message saying "start" and it took a minute to do the calculation needed to decode it, it would be too late by the time the eavesdropper got going. The sender and recipient would already have their string of numbers and that string of numbers, once broadcast, could never be retrieved. It would be infeasible to store the endless string of numbers in any computer and so they are essentially gone forever. Often, Dr. Rabin said, eavesdroppers will capture and store encoded messages hoping to decode them at later, either when computers have improved Q making it easier to do the calculations to break a code Q or when the method for encoding and decoding is known, perhaps because it has been stolen. But, he said, messages encoded with his system can never be broken by these means because the random numbers used in encoding and decoding are used once and are never stored. "That is why I call it `everlasting security,' " he said. Dr. Richard DeMillo, chief technology officer at Hewlett-Packard, said that what interested him about the scheme was that it "reshuffles the policy deck." "Normally," he explained, "agencies put the burden of wiretapping on the carrier." A telephone company, for example, would have to allow an agency like the Federal Bureau of Investigation to listen in on coded material. But with this system, the agency would still have the burden of trying to capture the appropriate stream of random numbers, a task that would be technologically infeasible. Dr. Lipton also said the scheme could thwart law enforcement agencies. "If I'm saying to you, `Buy 1,000 shares of I.B.M., I'm sure it's going to go up,' " he said, "and if that was an insider trading situation, five years from now the F.B.I. could go after you." If the agency had the encrypted message in hand, it could demand the key to read it, he said. But, Dr. Lipton said, if the random numbers used to encode were used once and never stored, the agency would be hamstrung. "It changes the ground rules," he said. Dr. Lipton added that, as a computer scientist, he appreciated the proof that the code could not be broken. "Michael's big contribution has been the proof that the system actually works," he said. "It's one of those things that sounds obvious but the mathematics is quite hard." Of course, what is good for those who want privacy may not be good for law enforcement. Even the cryptography systems sold today are a problem for the F.B.I. "Uncrackable encryption allows drug lords, terrorists and even violent gangs to communicate about their criminal intentions without fear of outside intrusion," the F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh, told the Senate in 1998, according to a transcript from the Federal Document Clearing House. "This type of encryption also allows these same people to maintain electronically stored evidence of their crimes beyond the reach of law enforcement." Still, some computer experts said that while it might be interesting in theory to have a provably unbreakable code, the practical importance of Dr. Rabin's code may be minimal. Some, like Dr. Dorothy Denning, a computer science professor at Georgetown, and Dr. Cipher Deavours, a professor of computer science and mathematics at Kean University in Union, N.J., said the code was simply impractical for large messages. The larger the message, the longer the string of random numbers needed to encode it, and the more difficult it would be to send. "It's a cute idea, but it's simply unmanageable," Dr. Deavours said. Others, like Dr. Lipton, disagreed. "I think it is quite practical," he said. And Dr. Rabin insisted that computers would have no problem with the encryption scheme, even with long messages that were sent among a large group of people. Beyond the question of whether the system would work in practice, some question it because, they say, the role of cryptography in protecting privacy has been overblown. "If you think cryptography is the answer to your problem, then you don't know what your problem is," said Dr. Peter G. Neumann, a computer scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif. Dr. Neumann explained that there are always ways to get around cryptography barriers and that these methods have nothing to do with breaking codes. "It's like the voting machines," he said. "You'd like to have some integrity in the electoral process and now folks are coming out of the woodwork saying, `We have this perfect algorithm for privacy and security.' " But, he said, while the systems may use cryptography to make sure that when someone touches a screen to vote, that vote is transmitted with perfect security, who's to ensure the integrity of the person who programs the computer? "There is no guarantee that your vote actually goes into the computer the way it looks on the touch screen," Dr. Neumann said. "What does it take to buy a computer programmer? A couple of years' salary and a house in the Cayman Islands?" Bruce Schneier, who is founder and chief technical officer for Counterpane Internet Security in San Jose, said that, as a scientist, he liked the idea of a provably secure system. "Research like this should be encouraged," he said. "But research is different from engineering." But in the real world, a burglar confronted by an impenetrable lock on the front door may well go round to the back and just smash a window. "I'm a cryptographer by trade," Mr. Schneier said. "And a provably secure cryptosystem doesn't do me any good. We're putting a stake in the ground and hoping the enemy runs into it and now we're arguing about whether it should be one mile tall or two miles tall. It doesn't matter. The enemy will walk around it," he added. Dr. Robert Morris, a retired cryptographer who was chief scientist for the National Security Agency, the nation's code-making and code- breaking agency, also questioned the primacy of cryptography. "As far as I can see, he seems to be correct Q it's a provably secure method," Dr. Morris said. "But does that mean no one can read it? Nah." He explained: "You can still get the message, but maybe not by cryptanalysis. If you're in this business, you go after a reasonably cheap, reliable method. It may be one of the three B's: burglary, bribery or blackmail. Those are right up there along with cryptanalysis in their importance." Dr. Rabin said that just because there are other weaknesses in communications systems, that did not mean that secure encryption was not important. It is as though medical researchers started arguing that there is no need to find a cure for AIDS, Dr. Rabin said. After all, many more people die of heart disease, and if you cure people of AIDS, heart disease can still strike them. "This is not a reason not to work on H.I.V.," Dr. Rabin said. "The problem of H.I.V. is still important." Dr. Morris said that even though the actual breaking of codes might not be necessary to read encrypted messages, Dr. Rabin's method could have an effect. "In a sense, what it does is shift the emphasis from cryptanalysis to some other sort of attack," he said.

10 19

No idea how old the page was...
by G Morgan Watkins 26 Feb '01

26 Feb '01

Just thought I'd share my amusement when I found an old letter to the editors that I'd written to MacWEEK many years ago on a Web page with your mailto: address. Reading again about the Ma and Pa Finder was fun. I'm glad that someone enjoyed it. Morgan ____________________________________________________________ G. Morgan Watkins, Associate Director, Academic Computing (ACITS) University of Texas at Austin, (512) 475-9341, watkins(a)mail.utexas.edu

1 0

update.527 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 26 Feb '01

26 Feb '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:43:41 -0500 (EST) From: AIP listserver <physnews(a)aip.org> To: physnews-mailing(a)aip.org Subject: update.527 PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 527 February 23, 2001 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon SILICON CAGE CLUSTERS: BETTER THAN BUCKYBALLS? The discovery of carbon fullerenes (Update 2) caught the imagination of scientists and the public alike as researchers raced to find applications for the tiny spheres commonly called buckyballs. Now researchers at the Joint Center for Atomic Research in Japan have managed to create similar arrangements of silicon atoms, a feat previously thought impossible owing to silicon's chemical nature. Potential applications of the silicon assemblies range from components in quantum computers to chemical catalysts to new superconducting compounds. Silicon is, of course, a vital material for the vast semiconductor industry and one of the most studied elements in all of science. Therefore this new discovery might lead to applications that could match or even exceed those expected for carbon fullerenes. Unlike carbon atoms, pure silicon cannot form stable, closed configurations. The new research, however, reveals that silicon can gather around a central metal atom and settle into basket-like arrangements called silicon cage clusters. One particularly low energy, and therefore stable, configuration consists of twelve silicon atoms forming a regular, hexagonal cage that surrounds a tungsten atom (see figure at http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics) Because the choice of a central metal atom affects the chemical behavior of cage clusters, scientists should be able to tailor the clusters to create novel nanodevices and catalysts. The researchers (Hidefumi Hiura, h- hiura(a)bq.jp.nec.com, 011-81-298-50-2615) note in particular that clusters efficiently isolate their guest metal atoms from the surrounding environment, a characteristic that could permit a cluster to act as a robust qubit in a quantum computer by storing a single bit of information in the spin state of the enclosed metal atom. (H. Hiura et al, Physical Review Letters, 26 February 2001.) UNTYING THE KNOT. Dealing with shoelaces is for most of us [SSZ: text deleted] PERMIAN CATASTROPHE COMET? A trace of indium in [SSZ: text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Online Business
by Danette 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Hi Fellow Networker, My name is Danette and I am tired of scams or getting scammed. I have tried= several=20 of these online opportunities full of hype promising us thousands of dollar= s=20 every month. It is a sad fact that many people who are in need to earn additional income= is=20 being victimized by this scam artists. Every time I tried one opportunity a= fter=20 the other, I ended more broke than ever. After some time trying all these opportunities, I have decided to select on= my=20 portfolio the company which is true to their words. Not the one full of hyp= e.=20 Not those branding unfounded claims. I concentrated on the one that has con= sistently=20 sent me the monthly check. Even without the hype they have given me the bes= t=20 compensation plan with their high % commission. They are providing real ser= vice=20 and not that pyramid scheme which simply transfer wealth from the new signu= ps=20 to the people at the top of the pyramid. They are not one of those pyramid = scams. Also when you join, you will have a team of upline sponsors who will help y= ou=20 succeed every step of the way. Instead of being left alone, you will be gui= ded=20 step by step by real people, not those autoresponders. Do not believe in do nothing, no recruiting, no selling schemes. They are s= cams.=20 You might want to try it to prove my words. Only yourself can make your own= success=20 together with the help of your sponsors. If you have 2 to 3 hours a day, you will be able to earn a full income in a= few=20 months. And there is absolutely no limit as how much you can earn. It is de= signed=20 to gain momentum after some time. But I prefer to avoid such statements as "You will get rich". I read it eve= rywhere=20 and I do not want to sound like them. =20 Please take the time to find more info by clicking on the link below. http://www.danbrauns.50megs.com Regards, Danette P.S. This is a one time email so there is no need to be removed from the li= st Join the web's fastest downline builder... www.danbrauns.50megs.com

1 0

Minority News
by cole 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

If you are interested in minority news go to www.toryprince.com Minority News. Updated Daily. ToryPrince.com News for the rest of us. You Received this email because you subscribed at the toryprince.com website or You subscribed to one of our partner sites. ____________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from this newsletter, send an email to this address: comments(a)Toryprince.org please put unsubscribe in the subject. Contact Toryprince at: prince(a)toryprince.org If you have any questions or have a story you think we should cover please email us or call (504) 416-9273 or (504) 314-9273 and ask for Prince Campbell or Tory Pegram Toryprince may contain links to sites on the Internet which are owned and operated by third parties. Toryprince Inc. is not responsible for the availability of, or the content located on or through, any such third-party site. Copyright(C) 2001 Toryprince Inc. All Rights Reserved. Toryprince is a registered trademark of Toryprince Inc. ____________________________________________________________

1 0

Questions for State Portal FAQs
by Julian Swig 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Dear Gray Davis; governor(a)governor.ca.gov Please answer these two questions in the FAQs for History and Culture of California under www.ca.gov.state/portal/myca.faq.jsp... The parties on the cc; list are invited to join this request by way of reply and by further distribution to others. They are asked to add julswig(a)juno.com to the reply for right to petition documentation purposes. QUESTION ONE: Is it true the State government left the union on 1-01-1873 by organizing under Codes never enacted on the record according to law? QUESTION TWO: Is it true that the seat of government for the present State of California is the District of Columbia (3 USC '21, 1, 2, & 9)? Respectfully, Peoples Law Association/Julian: Swig at julswig(a)juno.com

1 0

new proposal
by sasan 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Dear Sir/Madam we need a loan and amount of that is 2000000 usd. we dont know the terms and conditions. We can GUARANTEE the money by the COLLATERAL. could you please help us to the final step!! and not only we dont forget your kindness but also we compensate your goodness. If it doesnt concern your company be so kind and pass our letter to the right place. Best wishes . Sasan Haghighi shokooh(a)kimianet.com

1 0

Questions for State Portal FAQs
by Julian Swig 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Dear Gray Davis; Please answer these two questions in the FAQs under www.ca.gov.state/portal/myca.faq.jsp... The parties on the cc; list are invited to join this request by way of reply and by further distribution to others. They are asked to add julswig(a)juno.com to the reply for right to petition documentation purposes. QUESTION ONE: Is it true the State government left the union on 1-01-1873 by organizing under Codes never enacted on the record according to law? QUESTION TWO: Is it true that the seat of government for the present State of California is the District of Columbia (3 USC '21, 1, 2, & 9)? Respectfully, Peoples Law Association/Julian: Swig at julswig(a)juno.com

1 0

Questions for State Portal FAQs
by Julian Swig 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Dear Gray Davis; Please answer these two questions in the FAQs for History and Culture of California under www.ca.gov.state/portal/myca.faq.jsp... The parties on the cc; list are invited to join this request by way of reply and by further distribution to others. They are asked to add julswig(a)juno.com to the reply for right to petition documentation purposes. QUESTION ONE: Is it true the State government left the union on 1-01-1873 by organizing under Codes never enacted on the record according to law? QUESTION TWO: Is it true that the seat of government for the present State of California is the District of Columbia (3 USC §21, 1, 2, & 9)? Respectfully, Peoples Law Association/Julian: Swig at julswig(a)juno.com

1 0

Re: Why Gnutella Can't Scale. No, Really
by Adam Back 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

Jordan Ritter (napster co-founder) wrote this, which RAH forwarded to the DBS list. http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/mirror/gnutella.html So I'm presuming why people compare gnutella favorably to napster is because napster is flawed at a different level: it is not robust against legal attack. The very recent developments highlight the fragility of the napster model. This is not a criticism of napster or gnutella, but comparing them directly is difficult, gnutella is trying to do a much harder thing. It is typically much easier to design, and build hierarchical systems. Fully distributed algorithms and protocols with good characteristics are hard to design. But distributed systems _can_ be designed, and to some extent their performance and scalability predicted. So Gnutella has it's problems. However I wouldn't say that distributed sharing can't work, just that the first version of Gnutella wasn't very scalable. There are other systems: FreeNet, MojoNation, which perhaps are better. For one set of commentators the interesting factor is the ability of the distributed document space to be censor resistant; it's one major part of the application which generates the hype. So Napster doomed itself by being scalable enough to get enough users that it generated enough press (mostly centered around distribution of arguably copyrighted materials) to make the media industry notice it and the predictable result follows. It may be that Napster will continue in the form of the open napster clones, even if Napster the company is prevented. Anyone can start napster servers at this point. So this is the short term easier thing to do: create lots of reasonably large individually hierarchical napster clones. We know the web is reasonably censor resistant, web pages get shut down, but the content resurfaces at other sites, in different jurisdictions, etc. As long as there is an interest (and there clearly is), new servers will pop up faster than the censors can shut them down. Adam Personal opinions only, of course

4 5