-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
At 6:56 PM 11/23/1996, The Deviant wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
The good news is that you can prove a negative. For example, it has been proven that there is no algorithm which can tell in all cases whether an algorithm will stop.
No, he was right. They can't prove that their system is unbreakable. They _might_ be able to prove that their system hasn't been broken, and they _might_ be able to prove that it is _unlikely_ that it will be, but they *CAN NOT* prove that it is unbreakable. This is the nature of cryptosystems.
Please prove your assertion.
If you can't prove this, and you can't find anybody else who has, why should we believe it?
Prove it? Thats like saying "prove that the sun is bright on a sunny day". Its completely obvious. If somebody has a new idea on how to attack their algorithm, it might work. Then the system will have been broken. You never know when somebody will come up with a new idea, so the best you can truthfully say is "it hasn't been broken *YET*". As I remember, this was mentioned in more than one respected crypto book, including "Applied Cryptography" (Schneier).
diGriz
--Deviant PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39 "All in all is all we are." -- Kurt Cobain -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMphlZjCdEh3oIPAVAQF6xQf+Is1KFSNZQexVQeCP6eDywN8Zv4iuUVX4 xmzzwNrziDO5rKZk1o6ol4G7oEk4EBi9OQOSC9ph12USjMYNLuqZGKcTSRlhgnb7 Jd9llDxpGlITI8omeYVGxlClUgwNYdudKVTCcpsElF4bR2uY066J9uyWeJIUhL13 F7cc+SD6iBtYOaGudAMheEaW+wzM4kcgSiNFWO6rDkU3LKNlqg2LEcjeZGIW8QQh nxD06NKm807Cue/EiPYxwJmoQHFlZ5VjCkONj8GCgayBLUkJXIK6JIexQg9BS/Bx RlV38j0OcCbtyzm4xcF+jEcNO6+7rrUC6TSW07k5jyjZXik/K6lZ/Q== =M1Yr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----