Re: NIST proposes software key escrow development
an12070@anon.penet.fi said:
I think it would be utmost folly for software developers to work with the NIST and NSA on this or invest any time or capital.
Clearly this is true for cypherpunk sw developers, but others see an opportunity to make some bucks.
The fundamental requirement for NSA approval is the implementation of Skipjack in *software* in such a way that the algorithm is *protected* like it is in the booby trapped Clipper chips-- that is, impossible to deduce.
But this appears to be complete *fantasy*. Any such system must rely on some kind of a hardware approach.
Not necessarily. Zero knowledge proof techniques, for instance, can be applied to make source code as impenetrable as one wishes. This tends to carry a heavy runtime overhead, of course. And even hardware solutions can be reverse engineered. In fact, it's guaranteed to happen eventually. Triple layer metal interconnect chips can be selectively peeled via ion beam etching to reveal them to scanning tunneling electron microscope probing. Camouflage in the form of unnecessary functional units that mask actual operation can be uncovered by data flow analysis. Such a project would be extremely expensive...but someone will eventually do it. The Mafia or the KGB, for instance, if no one else.
Doesn't anyone have the faint glimmer of the idea that NSA, the *premier* cryptographic agency in the *world*, with unsurpassed technological and engineering prowess in the area, would have already *figured out* how to do this if it was *at all* feasible?
I think everyone assumes that the NSA is technologically several steps ahead of the game at all times, and clearly they have their own agenda. Some people just don't see their hidden agendas as threatening. C'est la vie. I think it makes for a very interesting chess game, myself. The NSA is attempting checkmate, but they're not strongly enough positioned to do so. In chess parlance, it's a bluff, but one with enough steel behind it to force a response, which gives them a minor but real tactical advantage. The obvious counter-response is to advance a pawn towards queening...which is already in progress. I'm reasonably happy with what the NSA appears to be doing in regard to foreign intelligence gathering; it's their domestic agenda that threatens the constitution. But that's in the nature of spook organizations. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Doug
Not necessarily. Zero knowledge proof techniques, for instance, can be applied to make source code as impenetrable as one wishes. This tends to carry a heavy runtime overhead, of course.
Could you go into more detail on this? Thanks! -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@apple.com 510/659-9560 anon-0001@khijol.uucp If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"
Not necessarily. Zero knowledge proof techniques, for instance, can be applied to make source code as impenetrable as one wishes. This tends to carry a heavy runtime overhead, of course.
Could you go into more detail on this? Thanks! -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@apple.com 510/659-9560
I didn't write the item above, but I'll add my comments anyway. Zero knowledge interactive proof systems are a critical part of modern crypto. Here's the brief summary from the Cypherpunks Glossary, available by anon. ftp at soda.berkeley.edu in pub/cypherpunks/misc as glossary.text.gz. *** zero knowledge proofs -- proofs in which no knowledge of the actual proof is conveyed. Peggy the Prover demonstrates to Sid the Skeptic that she is indeed in possession of some piece of knowledge without actually revealing any of that knowledge. This is useful for access to computers, because eavesdroppers or dishonest sysops cannot steal the knowledge given. Also called minimum disclosure proofs. Useful for proving possession of some property, or credential, such as age or voting status, without revealing personal information. By the way, this Glossary was distributed at the very first Cypherpunks meeting, a year ago. While never intended as an FAQ, it still may be of value to subscribers here. -Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
Not necessarily. Zero knowledge proof techniques, for instance, can be applied to make source code as impenetrable as one wishes. This tends to carry a heavy runtime overhead, of course.
Could you go into more detail on this? Thanks! -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@apple.com 510/659-9560
I didn't write the item above, but I'll add my comments anyway.
Zero knowledge interactive proof systems are a critical part of modern crypto. Here's the brief summary from the Cypherpunks Glossary, available by anon. ftp at soda.berkeley.edu in pub/cypherpunks/misc as glossary.text.gz.
Thanks for the definition (but I knew that, anyway). Sorru I wasn't clear - what I was looking for was examples of how zero-knowledge proof techniques could make source code impenetrable. Source would be nice, too... ;) -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@apple.com 510/659-9560 anon-0001@khijol.uucp If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"
participants (3)
-
doug＠netcom.com -
khijol!erc＠apple.com -
tcmay＠netcom.com