---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Carboni <ryacko@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:27 PM Subject: [Cryptography] An Open Source Analysis of NSA Cryptologic Capabilities To: cryptography@metzdowd.com Timeline of Events of Note 1992 - DES is broken cryptanalytically, although with an attack greater than the birthday bound 1993 - SHA released, based on MD4/MD5 1995 - SHA-1 revised, original SHA now called SHA-0 1998 - Skipjack Released 1999 - Impossible Differential Analysis breaks 31 of 32 rounds 2001 - SHA-2 released, by Threefish's standards, a 256-round hash function 2005 - SHA-1 is broken by a non-practical attack, spurs SHA-3 competition 2010 - Xie and Feng announce a one block collision on MD5, which they cannot release for _security reasons._ The occasional cryptanalytic success implies that the NSA is generally more advanced, but not always. Cryptanalytic success seems to be a random process, but it requires previous successes to exist. The NSA seems to be more advanced than the Chinese, and the Chinese vaguely more advanced than the remaining cryptographic community. This can probably be attributed to the fact that the NSA has more money, has the support of other SIGINT agencies in cryptanalysis, and thus probably have half the world's mathematicians. Thus perhaps the NSA has a 42% chance of getting a genuinely new cryptanalytic success, the Chinese a 33%, and the rest of the world a 25% chance. The evidence to support such a claim is that impossible differential analysis nearly broke Skipjack, although maybe the NSA was aware of it and had less concerns about security margins than we think. Further attacks on SHA-1 and SHA-2 spurred the SHA-3 competition. While it was reasonable for the civilian cryptographic community to be concerned, the fact that the NSA was concerned is telling. It was a result they did not predict, and they possibly thought further cryptanalysis could break those two hash functions. Fortunately there is a large body of research on the cost efficiency of research programs. While one may conclude that the NSA must perpetually be making leaps and bounds ahead of everyone through the virtues of compound interest, the answer is pleasanter. There is a diseconomy of scale when it comes to research. For instance, the Moon program or the Manhattan project could have been cheaper if more time was allotted for its completion. Given that the nature of research changes over time as the easiest results are exhausted, and that large organizations do have waste, it is safe to say that any gap between NSA and civilian cryptography will shrink by a small extent, year over year. _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography