Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
At 12:33 PM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
At 8:09 AM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
No, you can't. It's impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable.
No? Please prove your assertion.
You can't prove a negative.
If it can't be proven, why do you believe it is true? 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.
The best IPG could say is that it can't be broken with current technology. Next week someone might come up with a new way to break ciphers that renders the IPG algorithim breakable.
The best they can say is what they did say: they have a proof that their system is unbreakable. What you question, quite reasonably, is whether they have such a proof.
You point could have been that the same problem exists for proofs- that next week someone could come up with a way to prove, for all time, that an algorithim really IS unbreakable. So, to cover that posibility I should have said "it's currently impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable". :-)
Or, more accurately, nobody credible has seen such a proof. But, a clever person might invent one. IPG is eager to demonstrate their proof. They should hire a professional skilled in the art to evaluate their proof and publicly announce the results. This costs less than $5000 and would be, presumably, a small part of their profits should they have invented such an algorithm. diGriz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
At 12:33 PM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
At 8:09 AM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
No, you can't. It's impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable.
No? Please prove your assertion.
You can't prove a negative.
If it can't be proven, why do you believe it is true?
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.
The best IPG could say is that it can't be broken with current technology. Next week someone might come up with a new way to break ciphers that renders the IPG algorithim breakable.
The best they can say is what they did say: they have a proof that their system is unbreakable. What you question, quite reasonably, is whether they have such a proof.
It is impossible to prove such a thing. It's like saying you have proof that you have the last car of a certain model ever to be built. Anybody could come along and build another, and then you don't have the last one.
You point could have been that the same problem exists for proofs- that next week someone could come up with a way to prove, for all time, that an algorithim really IS unbreakable. So, to cover that posibility I should have said "it's currently impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable". :-)
Or, more accurately, nobody credible has seen such a proof. But, a clever person might invent one.
There *IS NO SUCH PROOF*. Just like you can't prove that god created the universe, or that Oswald shot Kennedy, and so on and so forth. It can't be proven. It never has been proven, and it never will be proven. People have new ideas, new algorithms are invented. Someday, somebody will crack _all_ the cryptosystems that have now been invented.
IPG is eager to demonstrate their proof. They should hire a professional skilled in the art to evaluate their proof and publicly announce the results. This costs less than $5000 and would be, presumably, a small part of their profits should they have invented such an algorithm.
Or, better yet, release this "proof", so that we may punch holes in its flawed logic.
diGriz
Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts. Brilliant. Just brilliant. --Deviant PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39 "By golly, I'm beginning to think Linux really *is* the best thing since liced bread." -- Vance Petree, Virginia Power -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMpe5eDCdEh3oIPAVAQF62Qf9HCtS2Ik6pZPgonn+TKPC0tEZeNL30Z7B zgvE+SL1/RcEcqNnpWZ94pNTVSfPyLJCEksuI1ZB+UzGN4Y8nh3rckUUHtNzNazb MwXbf5N5+TpYjwNAGJ4GkqoiaMr0RVaoAUWNRiGWuXZDt3wUe8La4amSu45W9qTE QpDZiwENyKI1BLOkWlMlhO0AFAY6C1C1+QGDMPCX+smbbg81/5qP/6F05F3ALhq9 KVPGw7nJ8ejmqDogLvhUHEVl+JjdpB/zVhlwSgfatRl+ziZzNoIpC0T3Ru5IfD1T WT9AAKNzqZCBNSeBQCI68B0LEvMta9B0EuzwPq9FnOWXjCaC3G1ymw== =k1Cr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
diGriz
Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
The Stainless Steel Rat. Harry Harrison. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
diGriz
Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Actually, rather clever if you're trying to estlablish reputation. Just make sure you use the right key. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, The Deviant wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
At 12:33 PM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
At 8:09 AM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
No, you can't. It's impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable.
No? Please prove your assertion.
You can't prove a negative.
If it can't be proven, why do you believe it is true?
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.
The best IPG could say is that it can't be broken with current technology. Next week someone might come up with a new way to break ciphers that renders the IPG algorithim breakable.
The best they can say is what they did say: they have a proof that their system is unbreakable. What you question, quite reasonably, is whether they have such a proof.
It is impossible to prove such a thing. It's like saying you have proof that you have the last car of a certain model ever to be built. Anybody could come along and build another, and then you don't have the last one.
You point could have been that the same problem exists for proofs- that next week someone could come up with a way to prove, for all time, that an algorithim really IS unbreakable. So, to cover that posibility I should have said "it's currently impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable". :-)
Or, more accurately, nobody credible has seen such a proof. But, a clever person might invent one.
There *IS NO SUCH PROOF*. Just like you can't prove that god created the universe, or that Oswald shot Kennedy, and so on and so forth. It can't be proven. It never has been proven, and it never will be proven. People have new ideas, new algorithms are invented. Someday, somebody will crack _all_ the cryptosystems that have now been invented.
To repeat Frantz', I thought Shannon proved OTPs were unbreakable. I can also assure you that they are unbreakable, because you cannot solve a three variable equation where only one variable is known, ie. the ciphertext. That is a fact, not an opinion like God, or Oswald, there are facts and opinions. It is a fact that OTPs are unbreakable and it is a fact that our system is unbreakable. Q.E.D. for the very same reasons except that we must use exclusionary proof instead of inclusionary proof like Shannon. With Kindest Regards, Don Wood
wichita@cyberstation.net wrote:
There *IS NO SUCH PROOF*. Just like you can't prove that god created the universe, or that Oswald shot Kennedy, and so on and so forth. It can't be proven. It never has been proven, and it never will be proven. People have new ideas, new algorithms are invented. Someday, somebody will crack _all_ the cryptosystems that have now been invented.
To repeat Frantz', I thought Shannon proved OTPs were unbreakable. I can also assure you that they are unbreakable, because you cannot solve a three variable equation where only one variable is known, ie. the ciphertext. That is a fact, not an opinion like God, or Oswald, there are facts and opinions. It is a fact that OTPs are unbreakable and it is a fact that our system is unbreakable. Q.E.D. for the very same reasons except that we must use exclusionary proof instead of inclusionary proof like Shannon.
Don, can you give us this proof please? I mean really complete proof, not vague references to other people's theorems and metadiscussions. I do agree with you that your opponents freuquently attack you without actually proving what they say. This is unfortunate. I do hope that you, though, can be above your detractors able to produce real proofs without resorting to namecalling and character assassination. I.e., your bashing of Paul Bradley, for example, may or may not concvince me that Paul does not understand cryptography. It will NOT convince me, though, that IPG system is good. I am not interested in your attacks on persons, however right you may be. Rather, it is important that you give us a good proof of security of IPG system. Thanks - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes to Don Wood:
I.e., your bashing of Paul Bradley, for example, may or may not concvince me that Paul does not understand cryptography.
However Paul Bradley's own rants, such as the recurrent discussion of "brute force attacks on one-time pads" should convince everyone that Paul Bradley doesn't know anything about cryptography and is unwilling to learn. As a teacher, I'm used to getting a class full of people who don't know much about the subject at the beginning of the semester and learn a great deal about it by the end of the semester. If you've never taught, you can't imagine the feeling of accomplishment and personal satisfaction that comes with it. I get occasional assholes who are unwilling and unable to learn. I've never seen a gang so dense as the "cypherpunks". Not even on Usenet. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (7)
-
Black Unicorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
nobody＠cypherpunks.ca -
snow -
The Deviant -
wichita＠cyberstation.net