What is Digg?68 Comments
- PantherX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24unbreakable?
The Titanic was unsinkable but it sunk. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Its not the encryption that is unbreakable, it is the stream of light.. A single stream of photons, that once touched, can be detected on the other end.. Therefore the receiving end knows that the data has been messed with and therefore, unbreakable.
- Timmmm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"one time pads are breakable. they're very high quality and take some serious time/resources to break"
Don't be ridiculous. If the pad is completely random then so is the message. It is completely unbreakable. The trouble is you have to distribute a key that is as long as the message, and people sometime reuse keys which *is* breakable. But if the key is truely random and only used once then it *is* unbreakable. - robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14once you start employing quantum entanglement in your cyptography, you're in an entirely new realm of cryptography. all the "anything breakable is unbreakable" arguments are only valid for encryptions based on mathematics, since that's all we've used so far.
the truth is, we don't really know about this yet. it could well be unbreakable.
and noodlez, i don't believe you. at least post a link. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11One time pad. That is, if you truely use it once. If you don't it ceases to be a one time pad.
- bignickolson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9One time pads are not breakable. It is mathematically proven that they are unbreakable. i just love the amount of BS that comes from "experts" on the internet. Quantum cryptography isn't some magic new cipher, it's merely a method for exchanging one time pads securely across a distance. I recommend "The Code Book" by Simon Singh for a good introduction to the various methods of cryptography.
- Braxo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Remember Lasers are a single beam of light, so in order to capture the message as its transmitted, you have to be in the direct path of the laser, you won't be able to see the light from the side of it.
If the original recipient doesn't receive the beam, they know it has been blocked.
However, I guess if one knows the technology, one could simply intercept the message and then retransmit it to the receiver, but with lasers, you can keep moving wear you point the message and the decryptor(a word?) will also have to move to capture it.
Note: I also did not read the article yet, just my two cents as I read the comments before. - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7More info:
http://www.amonline.net.au/eureka/media/scientific_research.htm - ArchonMagnus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6OTP's require truly random sources to be used as number generators, such as radioactive decay (complicated) or *blindly* drawing bingo balls out of a revolving cage. If so the sources will truly random. Computers use pseudo-random numbers. Pseudo-random numbers == Pseudo-security.
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8but detection has nothing to do with breakage.
if it is broken, and i read the message, the other end knows I've done so. However, the cat may or may not have already been out of the bag at that point. That's like saying having an alarm on a really tough lock makes the lock unbreakable. No, it doesn't, it just means I'll know if it's been broken. Then, other security/practices need to take over to make sure overall security is maintained. - spengy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6OTPs are only unbreakable if you have truly random data for your pads. Stomp your feet and mod me down all you want, but you need a good source of random data for secure OTPs.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@NJank: Once the receiver knows that the data has been intercepted, it can quite easily tell the sender to stop sending whatever info it was sending (or better yet, send dummy info).
- altexa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Have to agree with the book plug. "The Code Book" by Singh is really worth the read.
- oblivinated, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10There are no patterns in a one time pad. It is unbreakable. True randomness can never be solved.
- ax0n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not true. fine particles in the air reflect and scatter small amounts of photon from the beam. Those are indeed readable. It's much more secure than using an omnidirectional RF broadcast signal or even a focused point-to-point microwave link, but it's still able to be intercepted.
And if these codes are "unbreakable" then why are they limiting this (likely digital) cryptography method to LASER transmission? An un-breakable code would surely be just as safe regardless of transmission method.
One time pads are definitely a good thing, but the OTP must be close to perfectly random, and the used portion of all copies of the OTP must be destroyed as they're used, and the secret decrypted data should not be recorded anywhere.
As with all encryption schemes, there's a very real human element which is generally the weakest link. - noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9indeed.
it might be really hard to do, but if its transmitting information that is readable, its breakable.
its just a matter of how much its worth and/or how much time you're willing to spend on it.
edited to note: if you google "unbreakable encryption" you get lots of stuff about how there is no such thing and stories on breaking something labeled as unbreakable. - dxoigmn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10What about a one-time pad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Like, I don't know if like there is that encryption that like is totally unbreakable, but like I think that like if you had like a big enough computer, like you could totally crack the code. Like, this thing isn't talking about the like encryption that's like unbreakable, it's talking about the method of like delivery that's like unbreakable.
I tried to type that message in a language that you would understand. - gogogadgetearl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think the security of the data transmitted from the lasers is solely reliant on the sharks that you mount them on.
- ArchonMagnus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In WWII OTP's were generated using bingo cages with the balls drawn at random. Others suggest using radioactive decay as the source of OTP randomness. Computers generate pseudo-random numbers. Pseudo-random numbers == pseudo-security.
- tegel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is a form of quantum cryptography and is in theory unbreakable under the laws of physics as we know them today, they have be around for a few years now.
There are no way to break one time pads if they are used correctly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad). The problem is to distribute the keys in a secure way. This is really the hard part. And it is in this area the quantum cryptography can be of real use. - Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance" - Robert Coveyou
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Of course, Jokey, because it's completely impossible to generate random characters without a computer. Oh, wait a second. I forgot that it's ridiculously easy. You can just jam your fingers on the keyboard over and over, and Voila, random key.
- doublebackslash, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@noodlez
One time pads are indeed unbreakable if-and-only-if the attacker does not have access to the pad. Most one time pads use simple XOR operations to combine the pad with the data, and the opposite end does the same to decrypt the message.
However, if the pad is a pseuo-random stream (possibly generated by a computer, this does not matter) then the message can be broken. If the pad is *truly random* however, then any message could be re-constructed from the ciphertext, since any arbitrary 'key' could be chosen to genereate a chosen plaintext.
(I know wikipedia is not the hardest of evidence, but) Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_time_pad
Just read the first paragraph. The gist of the proof is that a message that is combined with an equal amount of entrophy is unbreakable, since the ciphertext contains exactly as much entrophy as the there are bit in thte message. - SaumZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4One time pad also relies on physical security of your "code book" and how you will secure that.
- SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Did he mean cryptographic? Not sure it's a major breakthrough to be able to transmit crosswords securely.
- SatanHimself, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The problem is usually the implementation, not the actual encryption algorithm itself. For example, if you wrote down a OTP key on a post-it note and left it stuck on your monitor it's useless. I have seen in government systems where everything must be encrypted with SSL between the user and the database, and then you were required to FTP the database as a text file to a government agency. Your only as secure as the weakest link in the chain.
- smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6My wife has far more expertise in this field, and she tells me that you should only use a pad one time. After that, you should really dispose of it.
On the other hand, I think if you use the same pad month after month, you probably don't have anything worth protecting. - ArchonMagnus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@noodlez
See my post above regarding perfect randomness. Radioactive decay, *blindly* drawing numbered balls/tiles, etc. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Again, it's not the encryption thats unbreakable, its the method of transporting the encryption.
- MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dude, they're sending 'linked photons' - not laser bearms. The photons contain some type of data they wish to transmit, and if one photon is observed, another which is 'linked' to it will also change accordingly, letting them know that the transmitted particle has been intercepted. It's not like someone puts something in front of the laser beam to intercept it, and therefore they don't recieve it at the other end.
- MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So, are they just using ecryption... with lasers? This article gives no details. And encryption has been around for quite a while.
- Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most well-implemented pseudorandom number generators put out results that are indistinguishable from true random numbers until you get a LOT of data. If you have a relatively short message (and therefore a short pad), you're not going to be able to do any sort of cryptanalysis. Here are two bytes. One I got from a PRNG. The other is from random.org. You tell me which is which:
Byte1: 11001111
Byte2: 01100101
And of course, you could always use a cryptographically-secure PRNG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudo-random_number_generator - xevo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Is this the one that stars Bruce Willis?
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure, you try decrypting a Secure Hash.
- ntohl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bobothn: yes, you can brute-force an OTP by trying every possible key. Unfortunately, brute-forcing a message of length n with a key of length n (that being the principle of the OTP) will end up giving you every possible message of length n. Which doesn't really help. ;-)
- SaumZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, it does have perfect secrecy. But it also relies on something that is truely random, which is not feasible with our current technology.
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unbreakable codes have been around for a while in one for or another. But it will be fun when the quantum computer arrives, if it ever does. Will a quantum computer be able to break quantum encryption? I guess in theory both yes and no. We will see :)
- Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I heard about this a few months ago I thought the gist of it was that it wasn't that it was unbreakable but that any attempt to read it would be detectable or would destrory the message.
- tegel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This has nothing to do with line of sight. It is a pure quantum mechanical effect that is utilized.
- mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is possible to generate random numbers using computer. You can use analog noise from microphone or webcam. It may not be totally random, (nothing's totally random) but it's impossible (afaik) to re-create this noise.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Im not going to read through the comments above, im just going to say what I know. Its very simple encryption here. All you need is a cypher where the key is as long as the message. That makes it unbreakable. What they are doing here is creating devices that can send the keys across large distances with absolute security because the receiving equipment can detect if the photons were disturbed during the transmission, and therefore cut off the transmission. Make sense?
- 16777216, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the message is "packetized" where the info is broken into small parts with each one carrying no useful data and each packet requires a conformation packet returned before the next one is sent then yes the message as a whole can not be broken because an intercept or tamper in either the sent data or conformation will show ( because the party that is doing the tampering/intercepting can not "fake" a "good" packet ) and the message can be aborted and destroyed.
So, both points are partially correct, the encryption of a packet CAN be broken ( but nothing useful can be deciphered ) and yes the stream of data CAN NOT be tampered with OR intercepted without being detected.
It is using BOTH with well designed packeting that the message as a WHOLE can't be deciphered. - jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The title is inaccurate w/ this system doesn't really have anything to do w/ standard encryption. They can send the message in clear txt.
All this system does is allows for instant detection of man in the middle attack.
Which is a great ability. - 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2did anyone figure out that code left in the judges ruling over the da vinci code?
I know its not directly related - harishl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hasn't there already been a quantum computer created with a few qubits? Surely not enough to crack a one time pad or RSA, but its definitely something to start with.
Also, I hate how ignorant people are spreading crap about this in agreement with a replier above. - Massif, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Top notch smellinator, top notch.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The receiving end knows the speed of light, and can tell if the message is taking even a fraction of a second longer than it should (ie. being intercepted and routed through).
- jokeyjon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4even if you only use it once, the pseudorandom numbers (usually) used are generated by a computer and are dependent on an algorithm. If you can get enough bits of OTP, you can start to unravel the algorithm. OTP as it is used is therefore breakable, but the resources needed to do so are huge. If the numbers used are truly random, then OTP isn't breakable, but you have ensure that sender and recipient exchange the identical pages securely, which means face to face. Not terribly practical.
- j20jeep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This means of message delivery could be intercepted assuming this isn't just across a room or something by means of a beam splitter and a second receiver. in which case the receiving party sees virtually no change in the beam it is receiving other than possibly a slight change in intensity which could be accounted for as dust or smoke in the air.
also any "random" number that is GENERATED by any mechanical means weather by computer, human, or other means is a pseudo random number and is therefore somewhat vulnerable to being re-created. there is no way around this as the only other way to obtain random numbers would be to find patterns in something in nature which is extremely impractical to do in a timely manner and if you re-use the same pattern you again have the same problem. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is