-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 wichita@cyberstation.net wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Ben Laurie wrote:
The Deviant wrote:
-----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).
It seems appropriate to quote Schneier on the subject:
"Those who claim to have an unbreakable cipher simply because they can't break it are either geniuses or fools. Unfortunately, there are more of the latter in the world."
I cannot argue with that, obviously he is correct.
And...
"Believe it or not, there is a perfect encryption system. It's called a one-time pad..."
Paul Bradley and others believe that you can brute force One Time Pads. Of course, you cannot and neither can you brute force our system. It is mathematically impossible as we have expounded on at length in past postings.
With Kindest regards,
Don Wood
The closest anybody has come to mathematically proving anything about the IPG algorithm was what you just said, which is nothing. "It has been proven" and "we have posted proof" are neither mathematical nor proof. --Deviant PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39 It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable. -- Spock, "The Enterprise Incident", stardate 5027.3 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMqEenzCdEh3oIPAVAQENdgf+KaWnvbuaJ9cNruJCSWV9n32/YOsOZwyJ HhRLUCrDDhzxMPTOkxmj749qt/mIruOFVjMHBz8bIdnzY43Q16Tt3LTC6cII8pvA i45R4OLnpG6zmKK+/w2/ewMhdpEL5P8f1Pjlzl3VhBqpriC7S22VIhSrc+gA1WTD z9UwJDtt3w54i3P74r+n8HFWjN8pI/Mu3S6og1rPytavxf/xlEmnTjEA/bEKEq36 3DSNgLBC7dslm/qvc7UKghKBPhPFGc3LiYGdWamTO2YPtn4+rHb8ObGG+Gy441ZC fFngIJ8T8cTWEDqEQtkdQrkxuBRueomUsKRygJjpw9it4+wTN7OjKQ== =nR5o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----