http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB107930573476054980,00.html
The Wall Street Journal
March 15, 2004
PORTALS
By LEE GOMES
If You Want to Protect
A Security Secret,
Make Sure It's Public
Here is some news that is shocking but true: The most sensitive, most
highly classified secrets of the U.S. government will soon be in the hands
of two foreigners, both of them self-described "Linux hackers."
It's nothing to be alarmed about, though. Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen,
two Belgian mathematicians, won a U.S.-sponsored global competition in 2000
to design the encryption system that will henceforth encode the secret
communications of the U.S. government. The contest was an entirely open
affair, and the winners selected after a lengthy public process. You can go
online yourself and test the Daemen-Rijmen Advanced Encryption Standard,
assuming you're handy with the likes of matrix multiplication.
It seems that the world's cryptographers, while dealing with keeping
secrets, do most of their work in public.
That's worth remembering as the country moves to electronic voting. The
connection between cryptography and voting may not be immediately apparent.
But in both fields, the integrity of something secret must be maintained,
often in very hostile circumstances.
After the Florida recount debacle, there is now a big push in the U.S.
toward electronic-voting systems; 50 million people are expected to be
using them this November. The problem is that most of the systems being
purchased by local election officials are proprietary, "black box"
solutions sold by companies who, citing trade secret issues, won't let
others look inside them.
It's not just conspiracy theorists who are worried about this, but leading
computer scientists. Proprietary balloting software leaked by corporate
insiders has been discovered by outside evaluators to be full of security
holes. Thus, the good folks working to guarantee secret ballots should
learn something from the people who work to guarantee secret messages. They
never trust anyone who says "trust us."
The basic approach in modern cryptography is to keep the pattern of your
specific key a secret, but not to worry if the overall design of your lock
gets out. It's called Kerckhoffs' Principle, after Auguste Kerckhoffs, a
19th-century cryptographer who, like Messrs. Daemen and Rijmen, was
Flemish. He listed six guidelines for a reliable encryption system. No. 2
was, "It must not be required to be secret, and it must be able to fall
into the hands of the enemy without inconvenience."
The idea is counterintuitive, and for most of the long history of secret
codes, it was ignored. But with the rise of computer-assisted cryptography
in the past 50 years or so, there has been a sea change in the working
assumptions of cryptographers. Now, "you can't get good cryptography by
designing in secret," says Whitfield Diffie, co-inventor of the "public
key" encryption system that revolutionized the field, and currently chief
security officer at Sun Microsystems.
If you use the Internet, you are using an alphabet soup of different
encoding methods, all available for public inspection: RSA, SSL and more.
Many security problems exist on the Internet, but none involve these
algorithms.
Why make this stuff public? Because even the smartest people make mistakes.
David Kahn, author of "The Codebreakers," says that hubris is something of
an occupational hazard among code makers. "One of the patterns in
cryptographic history is how people always believe the system they just
created is unbreakable," he says. "Someone very clever will create a
cipher, but then someone even cleverer will come along and find a flaw in
it."
Mr. Kahn notes that the German businessmen who began selling the famed
Enigma machine in the 1920s thought they had an unbreakable system. They
marketed the device by boasting that even if someone else had an Enigma, he
couldn't read your messages. Lucky for us, they were wrong. Polish, and
later British, cryptographers were able to defeat Enigma, in part because
at least in the early years, it gave away a clue by repeating the first
three characters of a transmission twice in a row.
These days, tens of thousands of cryptographers use the Internet as a kind
of global Bletchley Park, the famed World War II site where the British
cracked Enigma. Indeed, cryptographer Paul Kocher notes a pattern:
Cryptographic systems developed in public tend to stand up; those developed
in secret, like those for DVD systems or European-style GMS phones, often
get broken.
But if the entire world can see your encryption method, couldn't some smart
bad guy find a flaw in it and quietly use the information against you? In
theory, yes. But the real world doesn't work that way.
Think of all the graduate students eager to make a name for themselves by
pointing out someone else's mistake. Mr. Kocher, for instance, is a
cryptocelebrity because as a student, he found a subtle but serious
theoretical flaw in the widely used RSA encryption method. The system could
then be repaired.
You get the point by now. Cryptography is developed in public. If it's good
enough for eBay, isn't it good enough for the ballot box?
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga