Slashdot Mirror
Enigma-like Device Patent Granted - 67 Years Later
Thanks to Bruce Schneier [?] of Counterpane fame for sending in this tidbit. The US Patent Office has granted William Friedman a patent for an Engima-like device - the catch is that he filed in 1933. Still it's a cool vintage piece of crypto - and I also noticed that a gallery copy of Bruce's new book is on eBay. 'Course, you could wait just a few weeks and buy a new one, but hey - if you gotta have it now, you gotta have it.
Well, at least it's a patent, which means that while you are not allowed to use it, you can always poke at it and figure out how to Crack it.
:)
Besides, who wants to use a code that has lost a war and then some?
So no conspiracy theories here.
The interesting bit is the 67 years delay. Maybe it's not Enigma they are worried about, it's how they cracked it that's holding it up.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
The question that bring up is, why did it take 67 years to declassify information about Enigma? This stuff has not been critical to the security of the nation for two generations. Wasn't one of the original machines up for auction on ebay this year? I'm all for keeping secrets in order to protect our country, and I'm all for erring on the side of caution when it comes to those secrets, but this seems rediculous. Does anyone know of a particular aspect of the technology that would require it to be classified until now?
-B
Okay, let's say that the NSA wants a device to solve problem 'A'. They would assign one of their engineers to it, but they're way too busy breaking RC5 (not with Team Slashdot, either...) or listening in on some random New Zealand phone call via Echelon. So they contract it out company 'B'-- completely unclassified.
Now company 'B' goes out and develops the device, and in the process winds up violating the patents held by companies 'C', 'D', and 'E'. These companies come to company 'B', screaming about patent infringement and lawsuits that will leave future generations in debt. What happens?
The NSA states that the patents issued are not valid in this case, because the NSA has prior art-- company 'B' is therefore using NSA technology, not civilian technology. When companies 'C', 'D', and 'E' ask for proof, the response is pretty standard: "Sorry, but that's classified information." Companies 'C', 'D', and 'E' are SOL.
Company 'B' makes a killing selling thousands of units to the NSA, and later markets a *very* similar product to the general public. Except this time, they're paying royalties to 'C', 'D', and 'E'.
Guess who never really has to license patented technologies?
Alfred J. Menezes, Handbook of Applied Cryptography.
Schneier, Bruce. Applied Cryptography, Second Edition.
Kissinger, Henry. Collected writings. If you want to know crypto, you also need to know the political climate which created crypto; and when it comes to Cold War history, nobody tells it like Kissinger.
The ICSA Guide to Cryptography. Very light, but it's good for a beginner's introduction.
Kahn, David. The Codebreakers.
Bamford, James. The Puzzle Palace.
Gaily, Jean-Loup. The Data Compression Handbook (? on the name; it's been a while).
Knudson, Jonathan. Java Cryptography.
Elliote, Rusty (?). Java I/O.
Halsall, Fred. Can't think of the name for the life of me, but it's a monstrously big book about network communications. Very good stuff, even if it only has one chapter on communications security.
The USPTO uses an advanced inventory system, different from both FIFO (first-in, first-out) and LIFO (last-in, first-out). The new system is called FISH, and is rumoured to stand for First-In, Still-Here...
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
I can save you and your great-grandkids some time:
1) Nothing
2) Lee Harvey Oswald
3) Vince Foster
-B
My guess to the lateness of the patent is the NSA thought encryption should be controlled solely by them, and so they just wrapped the thing up in red tape and left it. Why wait 'til 2000 to let it be patented though? Why not 10-20 years ago when computers were clearly far superior in encryption methods?
Ummm... Question?
How could the NSA have suppressed a patent or, for that matter, be assigned a patent, on something that was filed a good 18 years before the NSA was founded?!?
--
Greetings New User! Be sure to replace this text with a
Clear, Dark Skies
Fair comment. I meant no disrespect actually. I was just surprised that a law firm owned the domain, not some crappy dot com company.
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Usability News and Research
How to Download YouTube Videos
You can read the patent for yourself at http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06097812_ _&s_all=1 complete with cross-references. In my opinion, the reason that best explains why the patent has just been issued now is that back in 1933 when Friedman filed for the patent, the information was immediately classified for a set period of time as a matter of course. The FOIA and related executive orders have mandated automatic declassification after 50 years unless it can be demonstrated that disclosure would have a directly detrimental effected on national security. Oddly enough, cryptoanalytical and cryptographic secrets are *explicitly exempt* from this automatic declassification system. Moreover, it's probably quite likely that de/reclassification efforts rank rather low among the NSA priorities. It's entirely possible that they simply never got around to it until now.
- -Jw#LR.
Now for the more speculative reason. The academic/civilian cryptographic research community has never successfully developed a general method for cryptanlysing rotor machines; basically, the limits of what we know how to break is the Enigma with knowledge of the rotor wirings and the SIGABA/ECM systems with knowledge of their rotor wirings. True, there have been vague descriptions of the cryptanalysis of Purple, but the key steps (ie. reconstruction of wirings, and far more importantly, determination of the general structure of the machine without obtaining it) have never been declassified. Rotor machines were very commonplace until about the early sixties; moreover, their descendants, shift register based stream ciphers were probably in use to this day. It's pretty safe to say that there are entire categories of cryptanalytic and cipher design techniques that we are ignorant about.
The sci.crypt newsgroup has a long thread about the patent which can be read, among other places, at http://www.remarq.com/read/cryptsci/q_RGaGOxKZQUC
As noted elsewhere, this device was actually patented by the NSA. Now, the big question is why'd they bother after 67 years? Could the NSA use this patent to shut down other, non-governmental, forms of encryption? Is this part of a plot by the nefarious Clinton administration to obtain leverage over these companies so that they can get their treasured 'key escrow' scheme?
Besides being an expert cryptographer, Friedman was the world expert on the Voynich Manuscript, which is probably the closest thing in the real world to those weird books mentioned in Lovecraft's stories. Perhaps granting this patent is only the government's way of belatedly thanking Friedman for his work in preventing the Great Old Ones from returning.
You just know that in 1961 some guy who was cleaning out his desk, due to retiring, saw this application which had slipped behind the drawer, and said, "Oh dear." He guiltily looked around, and then stuffed it back into the desk.
Then 20 years later a successor found it, and though, "Oh shit. Well, if anyone find out that we just sat on this patent for 48 years, we're going to look bad. I think I'll put this off." He kept putting it off, wishing it didn't exist, and the longer he waited, the worse it would look when the word finally got out.
His successor played the same procrastination game.
That person finally had a heart attack and died this year. The person who inherited his unfinished work was about to "accidently" lose it too, but NSA threatened to release his web browser history to the public, so he gave in and approved it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The US govt taking 4ever to do anything, at least they are faster than the usps.
Think the USPS is slow? Try paying a bill through the mail with a check when you will have the amount in your account the next day. I swear these move faster than email.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In particular, if you use a term like this in a case where you could have meant either thing, you're not communicating *anything* - unless everyone is careful about usage.
"begs the question" is a term of art. It is a technical term describing a specific logical fallacy. Using it in another way is like using "logic" to mean "intuition", or using "animal" to mean "an object which moves". It makes it harder for a reader to be sure of what you meant.
Computers are not the only things which will understand you better if you're precise in your use of language.
Of course, if you don't know what you mean either, no big loss - and this is the impression people will get of you if you are careless with language.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The Poles obtained a commercial Enigma and were the able to analyze and crack the military Enigma in 1933. While the British did a lot of important work on the Enigma, the Poles, esp. Marian Rejewski, deserve most of the credit for cracking the Enigma. Too many books and articles ignore their work.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
A law firm (Oppedahl & Larson LLP) owns patents.com. There is actually some good stuff there. And of course, there is always Freepatents.org, IBM's Gallery of Obscure Patents, and O'Reilly's list of Controversial Patents.
How to Download YouTube Videos
That's not all. In fact, rumor has it that they may be patenting the bicycle as well sometime around 2013.[*]
[*] And then they will promptly sue all bicycle owners and bicycle manufacturers for infringement.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
First of all, they granted the NSA the patent, not this guy. If you look at the "applicant" field you'll see that it says "The United States as represented by the NSA". Secondly, that explains why it took 67 years - the information in it was classified(!) and it took 67 years for it to be declassified to the point where the patent could be granted. Gotta hand it to the NSA.
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
Why don't we give it a try? :-)
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Enigma machine? SSL? Bah. Just you wait until my patents for ROT-13 encryption clears the U.S. patent board. Nobody will be able to tell a dirty joke on USENET without paying me a royalty, and I plan to wring it out of them, just like Unisys.
Ol ernqvat guvf, lbh unir vasevatrq ba zl cngrag.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
IIRC the book's examples are in C. A decent companion text is Java Cryptography (O'Reilly), which while light on theory, is a fairly good tutorial in use of the java.security package's crytographic classes. Unfortunately the book is rather shallow (read the reviews on Amazon for elaboration) and also rather dated; do not expect to find coverage of JCE 1.2 (Java Cryptography Extension) or other recent (year < 1.0) releases.
I'd love to hear others' favorite cryptology-related books.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
313373 5cr1pt k1ddi3 -> Can someone help me with this install script?
g0t 2007 -> still working on this one. As best I can tell, it's gibberish.
m3 hax0r 0x900d -> Red Hat works! wow! and I have root access! this kicks ass!
---
galley proof
n. Printing
A proof taken from composed type before page composition to allow for the detection and correction of errors.
I thought "this guy" was William Friedman. That's kind of like saying "some dude" in an article about cars when you meant "Henry Ford." Friedman was quite the crypto boy--in fact, many of his books are still available from Aegean Park Press . I highly recommend ELEMENTS OF CRYPTANALYSIS--it will really help you wreck the Cryptoquips....
IANAL, but I thought patent law was there to encourage innovation. Commercial companies patent something that took you a long time to develop and then get a chance to recoup your investment.
The gov't patenting something seems like an abuse of the system. We don't really want the gov't to be in the business of licensing patents do we?
Arrgh! It's bad enough that the PTO has control over which brain-dead ideas get a 17-year window of protection, but giving "them" the ability to lock down ideas is just too scary.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if the U.S. Gov't had the one-click shopping patent instead of Amazon?!
According to The Codebreakers by David Kahn, this must be one of several cryptographic-related inventions Friedman made. In 1956, Congress gave Friedman $100,000 in compensation for the profits lost because several of his inventions were classified. On page 391, Kahn says:
I presume that this is the first of the four patents held in the Patent Office, which implies that three more will appear over the next few years. This is one of the rotor machines, but I'm not sure which of them it is. I'm really curious about the inventions so secret that they never had a patent application for them.
Near as I can tell from a quick glance through the book, in 1933 Friedman would have been working for a cryptographic section of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, to which I suppose the NSA is today's successor.
The United States could have used "Patent Infringment" as an excuse to enter World War II.
I wonder how patent lawyers would have fared against the German army.
Donny
The actual joke is "Did you hear Amazon.com is going to change their name? Yeah...they're changing to Amazon.org because aparently they're a non-profit." I got a few good laughs out of that one a while ago. Now that I think about it, if turing a profit was a real requirment of a .com address, the TLD would consist entirely of Ebay and porn.
-B
I studied crypto at college last year and saw diagrams, algorithm analysis, and even photos of the Enigma machines. This information is not secret, or even hard to come by, and it hasn't been for a long time.
And yet this patent was only recently made public because of "classified" info.
This just illustrates that our own government intentionally restricts information and misleads us. FOIA my ass.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Did anyone see Futurama last night? This patent must have been at the bottom of the pile!
Second, if you request a galley copy, it's considered quite unethical to sell it -- doubly so before the publication date. OTOH, if the seller received the copy unsolicited, I see no reason not to sell it. :)
--Tom Geller, Editor of Bisexuali ty: A Reader and Sourcebook.
Tom Geller
I just received a patent on my encryption engine. It translates plain English into undecipherable Hacklish. For example,
elite script kiddie -> 313373 5cr1pt k1ddi3
got milk? -> g0t 2007?
I'm a uber hacker -> m3 hax0r 0x900d
I'm currently working on the decryption algorithm, anyone wanna help?
And yet this patent was only recently made public because of "classified" info.
The "classified info" was probably the NSA itself. Until recently, all information about it was classified, including its name and initials.
Kind of like Area 51. It doesn't officially exist, in spite of the signs authorizing use of deadly force on trespassers.
There are lots of obvious reasons that declassification works very slowly. Some simple ones:
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.