What is Digg?48 Comments
- Mikey_Ickey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the dude got 2.5 million and all he used was a diamond a microwave and fibre optic cable, thats ***** i have lying around my house.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why don't they just wave a big flag with "HACK THE ***** OUT OF ME"
- brewer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah. good luck cracking quantum encrypted information. heisenberg's uncertainty principal will win in the end.
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's not really a code, is it? Seems more like a technique.
- StephnDolenc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry for that long, harsh post; i just miss the usual brilliance of the slashdot community...at least 10 posts would've already explained what I had to say if slashdot picked up this story. I suspect it's because the average age of digg users is probably 15 or younger? At least the average age of the people who posted/commented on this article is.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is severely non-technical, however, here's the gist of what they're talking about.
Basically, the idea is that you can send a secure message over an unsecure line by having that fiber optic line running between you and your intended receiver.
It's possible to use that single photon beam to encrypt your message. Anybody wanting to decrypt it needs to read those photons without modifying them, which is actually impossible to do.
In other words, this isn't an unbreakable code as such, but it's part of what you'd need to build a system that's invulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. Nobody could tap your line without you knowing about it instantly, as the decoder on the other end would suddenly start outputting garbage instead of the message. - StephnDolenc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys don't get it; it's a method of encryption that use the randomness if quantum mechanics to protect the transfer of data. Current encryption techniques can be cracked because the encrypted method becomes obvious after a few thousand packets are captured, but if you capture these packets it won’t matter – because the quantum mechanics of a single photon will change. Therefore, it's "theoretically impossible" to break; I’ll submit another comment later with a link that explains this in depth later if I find a good one. BTW, you guys are all noobs because you’re not at defcon so don’t act like you have the skillz to crack it anyway; especially the kid that posted the article “I am on it allready� – no you’re not; unless you are making groundbreaking discoveries in quantum mechanics. But please learn to spell first
- DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stephendolenc,
The article mentions nothing about using quantum cryptography. There are already commercial quantum cryptography systems in use by major banks, this is something different. Go back and re-read the article. Here are some excerpts to look out for:
"Until now, scientists could not produce a single-photon beam, thereby narrowing down the stream of light used to transmit information."
"it's not so much of a problem to have a coded message intercepted, the problem is getting the key (to decode it)"
"The single-photon beam makes for an unstealable key."
In other words, they are not relying on the quantum state of a photon as they do in quantum cryptography, they are simply reducing a fiber optic transmission of the key to a single photon stream, thereby eliminating the chance that someone can 'sniff the key'.
If you have a single photon stream, and you have a hack that allows you to see that single photon stream.... you have just interrupted the stream of data, and your intrusion is detected immediately. If they send the key in multiple parts, waiting for a signal from the other end to continue transmission, and they get a 'failure' indication from the recipient because the photons were intercepted and read by a hacker, no more parts of the key is sent. The hacker is left with an incomplete key. Its pretty simple, actually, and will be far easier to implement than quantum cryptography is today (which has a transmission limit of around 20 Kilometers, if I remember correctly). This method seems like it would have no real limit on the transmission range.
Having said that, though, I'm sure there will be a way to break it in the future, without causing the photons traveling through the fiber optic cable to appear to be intercepted, thereby alerting the sender to your presence. The trick is to know if a photon just passed by, since you cannot split a beam of a single photon stream. I suppose even a simple repeater that reads the photon stream and reproduces it, sending it on downstream to the recipient will probably be the first method of 'hacking' it. This will require physical access to the cable, not just sniffing packets from a router.
The headline for the article is misleading, however, it should not have read 'unbreakable code', as much as it should have read 'more secure method of transmitting data'. That sounds kinda dull, though. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0b0bee sucks, just look at http://digg.com/links/DAMN_funny_Pictures
- sleepless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It will be unbreakable because someone accidentally broke the diamond. Ooops... "Did I do that that?"
- snatchedlaus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also these will never be mass produced as diamonds are expensive so hackers will never need to break the code as it will probably never be widely used.
- WickedOwl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the name of the new code: titanic
- capn_crunch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I heard about the light thing a while ago.
- jmc730, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"theres no such thing as an ubreakable code." its true, if humans can make it they can also break it
- adam.lindsay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finally, I can protect my plans for cold fusion from hackers.
- pacifier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A single line running between two computer cannot be easily sniffed, but thats not how the internet works now or ever.
- Cheirdal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is an article from May. Way to look at the date of an article when promoting something, people.
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Love it when I see "unbreakable" and "unsinkable".
Just give me some software that's unsuckable and I'll be happy. - mydave, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0to stop hackers? haha it's so funny
http://www.chasr.org/
http://www.danielrhodes.com
www.toyotaemployeepricing.com - susu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with DWatch, the weak link in the chain is the repeater.. If you're transferring information from point A to B (straight connection) its not a problem; if you're sending it through the net, well thats another matter altogether because SOMEBODY has to pass it down the line..
~ - Caladain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wasn't the Enigma machine also "perfect"? Pfft...when will people learn..
- Denjira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anything engineered can be taken apart, the person "hacking" it most likely know how to build it.
- quietk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hahahaha Mikey_Ickey
- nxtw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0this article is.. um.. sort of worthless
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Its not the code Nothlit, its the basis of the machine used to
produce the code. - wolfger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's not unbreakable at all. Any encryption that can be read by the intended receiver can also be read by an unintended receiver. The only thing special about this method is that if an unintended receiver only gets part of the transmission, neither he nor the intended receiver wind up with anything usable, and the interception will be detected.
Anytime anybody claims to have an unbreakable code, you know they are just hyping something... - bobetr, on 11/27/2008, -1/+0i wonder how long it will taste till someone posts here that they already did it.
- sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0All of this "unbreakable code" fantasy is just an illusion. Any code can be broken, and not always by technical means. The weakest link in any code, cipher, or security mechanism is the humans who control it.
Unbreakable code? Keep dreaming... - bndocksnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0argh, i think, says it all. anyways, i came up with the unbreakable code ages ago. i call it, "pig latin." oo-yay all-yay uck-say, ool-yay ever-nay rake-bay it-yay. hahaha, err, i mean, aha-yay!
- nymphetamine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0theres no such thing as an ubreakable code.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Calling you code unbreakable is the stupidest thing to do. It is just like adml shake says, it's advertising to hackers. It makes a challenge for them to take up. It's like calling a mountain unclimable, it's only going to attract the best and most adventurous climbers.
- MEvsYOU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2hey as long as i can watch porn on the web.. i don't care bout the code
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Dwatch yours was an interesting read
thanks - jamsea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I give it a week, two weeks tops :)
- hardcoredj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There is too such a thing as 'unbreakable code'.
It will stay unbreakable until it's broken.
New 'unbreakable' code will then be created and will remain unbreakable until it too is broken. - baaadbart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Baltakatei, do you honestly think it'd be that easy? You don't have the cipher! You can't read the code if you don't have the key to cipher it.
- .Steven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Australians!!! Always the best!
- baltakatei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If I were trying to intercept the message, I would just make myself appear to be exactly like the receiver, receive the message, decrypt any secondary encryption, and see what they're up to. The real receiver doesn't receive anything, and I have the message. That's my 2 cents.
- 4z4z3l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0first did they hire MacGyver to do it. Second i agree it wont be a l33t h4x0r that will break it just a good social engineer
- SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0anything humans create will have flaws, thats just the way life is. so copy protection is stupid and useless.
- uglymike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sounds like a Dan Brown novel... Digital Fortress anybody?
- mad23dog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"theres no such thing as an ubreakable code"
He said it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Lol adml
- masterzora, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0steph: No matter what the method is, the code has to be breakable in SOME manner. Otherwise it couldn't be read by ANYBODY. Even a one-time pad only requires the interception of the pad. You might not call this "breaking" it, but all the attacker needs is to read the data and it doesn't matter after that.
Again, there is no unbreakable code, there is only very difficult to break code. - PhAdE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Already only has one L in it.
- usmarinesjz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0you guys need to all realize that no code is unbreakable, even if we do away with the human aspect of it. I would say that it's not going to stand the test of time. not by a long shot. And by the way if you go to defcon all you are doing is putting yourself at risk of being watched over by the US feds considering that they know that people who go to defcon want to learn how to hack and good hackers themselves. I don't say great because the best hackers out there aren't going to announce what they are doing. That defeats the purpose of good hacking. The best hack is one that people don't even know happens.
JoeyZ
"The best security is the one you know nothing about" - sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0stephndolenc: maybe you should go back to slashdot
By the way, I doubt the average age of users on this site is less than 15. Quite the contrary, I am not and I'm sure most users aren't either.
However, I do agree about the bad spelling. For Christ's sake there is a spell checker! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Mr. Stephndolenc .. just by googling around and getting info .. you also do not become a eleet hacker either ..
and if you are so concerned about spellings go teach in a school .. not wander on a technology site
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is