Slashdot Mirror
Animated Encryption
An anonymous reader submits: "Cartoons for fun and secrecy -- A student at the University of Dayton has apparently come up with an encryption
scheme using computer generated animation. Story at the Chronicle of Higher Education."
The article was a bit scant on details. As we've seen before, if you keep your encryption scheme unpunlished and just claim that it is 'unbreakable', usually someone comes along later when it is in use and breaks it for you.
..
Actually it sounds quite similar to the 'teenage genius' story of that Irish schoolgirl who had her similarly 'unbreakable' matrix encryption scheme widely publicized without peer review, and then broken.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in this case
There seem to be no details in the story about just What this marvelous breakthough is; it can't just be that they use encrypted data as motion data and generate a cartoon of it - that is just steganography, and a pretty obvious version too (plus of course, any movement of one character that obscured a move of another would cause data loss).
Anyone know of a more technical piece on this?
-=DaveHowe=-
This is such a pointless article. They give no insight on the technology. And one of the major points: The inventor is a teenager. Ok ... Maybe if they write about it in a couple of years when the patent passes it might not be a wast of time/bandwidth to read that article. There was no insight only saying saying that he used random numbers and cartoons. And oh yeah, they tried to sell it. If you are going to write about a tech, please .... please describe the technology, isn't that the point ?
--=.=-- www.cyber2000.qc.ca
What happens when you need to break the encryption?
... ;-)
Do you call in The Tick?
Freakazoid?
The Brain?
Who knows
There already is an unbreakable encryption: the One-Time Pad. Furthermore, it is mathematically provable that no unbreakable encryption can have a shorter key than the One-Time Pad. Since the One-Time Pad algorithm is already extremely simple and fast (XORing the key with the plaintext), I don't see a need for any other unbreakable encryption.
Maybe it is just me, but I think the poster is a little bit confused. It is not that animation is being used in encryption, but rather he was inspired by the crowd scene in Hunchback, where the characters movements were essential being controlled by random numbers to create a lively and chaotic look to it.
The article then states that the thought was to use random data in an encryption algorythm to make it unbreakable. So I don't think that we will be seeing messages passed around the the next Disney flick...
" He hopes to sell the technology to computer companies, banks, government agencies, and other organizations that could use a secure code."
Am i the only one who can't see many / any real world applications for this.
Cruise TT
Working with stick men in animation, Mr. Kauffman wanted to improve upon those techniques, assigning more numbers to more body parts and actions.
While studying number generators for the cartoon project, he found references to mathematicians and computer scientists who had theorized that the technique could be used in encryption technology [...]
"Since you don't know what any of the values are mathematically, [a hacker] can't solve it," says Robert E. Kauffman, who is a senior research chemist at Dayton and Jason Kauffman's father.
If I understand it correctly, Alice sends a cartoon to Bob. Bob knows which features to looks for (for example the head and feets) -- that's the secret key -- and can then reconstruct the message by analysing the movements of these features.
Not too dumb, but it looks more like steganography than cryptography.
GFK's
new, and potentially unbreakable, encryption technology
Unbreakable? Sounds like snake oil already...
An idea dawned on him for a unique way to use random numbers in a math equation to encrypt data.
"Since you don't know what any of the values are mathematically, [a hacker] can't solve it,"
This is ridiculous. Some stream ciphers use random number generators for their encryptions. The problem is, that since the "random" numbers come from a random number generation algorithm, they are not random -- they just appear to be. When they are subject to analysis, patterns are found, and the whole system is compromised. The security lies in how hard it is to predict the "random" numbers.
Jason Kauffman is going to continue plugging away at his mechanical-engineering degree.
That's a good idea, since this sounds like the junk "unbreakable" encryption that comes around every few years. If he's interested in encryption, he should take some advanced math classes to get a better foundation to work from. And pick up a copy of Applied Crytography.
Sorry about the rant... but this kind of thing gets me going.
I was sitting outside and saw all the blades of grass swaying in the wind before me. I noticed how some were shorter than others, and that they actually didn't all have the exact same color. I thought if I assigned a number to each of these and several other characteristics, I'd be well on my way to unbreakable encryption.
My dad used to be a pretty famous rodeo clown in the 60s and an alumnus of the college I'm attending, so when I approached the board of trustees for approval for my research, they were ecstatic! They gave me $20,000 to conduct my research. Now I will be busy all summer observing the grass swaying in the wind. I plan to have a prototype ready at some point, I hope.
"Since you don't know what any of the values are mathematically, [a hacker] can't solve it," says Robert E. Kauffman, who is a senior research chemist at Dayton and Jason Kauffman's father. Robert Kauffman formed a partnership with his son and the university to patent the idea. The Kauffmans are reluctant to go into more detail about the idea because it's in the patenting process.
Cryptography based on a hacker "not knowing" something can be in for quite a surprise. And there is not even a hint here that this technique is based on a mathematically sound formula that is "hard" to solve. Perhaps this guy is on to something, but this attempt to talk about it but at the same time claim they can't talk about it yet leads me to believe this is more of an exercise in hype or ego than anything scientific. Cartoon cryptography might turn out to be a fitting term for it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What you mean is probably: "Computers cannot generate true random numbers in software".
Germanium diodes are said to generate real random, chaotic electron flows if used in blocking direction.
One usually uses a Germanium diode, places an A/D converter past it and calls it "hardware random number generator".
That said, scientists still aren't sure whether there is such a thing like "true random numbers" at all. Create your own universe and maybe you will be able to predict any "random" number that beings within this universe try to create.
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
So now I can encrypt animated pr0n in japanese anime...oh wait...
This
Homer's hair. Nuff said.
And whenever they need to send a burst of data, there always is some reason to show Homer in the 60s in the storyline, right? ;-)
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
A few points here:
It looks like he's already working on taking people for rides.
At my next development meeting should I recommend we watch the Little Mermaid for inspiration on database design?
Since any truly unbreakable encryption scheme has to use keys at least as long as the One-Time-Pad, I do in fact consider the problem of unbreakable encryption solved. No need for further research.
Of course, there's a lot of need for research into ciphers which are not mathematically provable to be unbreakable, but are more practical than the One-Time Pad. :)
From the article reporter: "An unlikely combination of interests -- cartoons and math"
Um. Has this guy never met a math or science student before?!
You are correct, but I must say that the Germanium diode you are talking about must be considered as an external source of randomness, since it's not something normally found in a computer.
What I meant to say is that in today's personal computers, there is nothing truely random.
Video poker machines have been exploited because the random numbers they generates tend to repeat. When you sample those numbers over a couple of weeks, you can see patterns emerging from those numbers. If you can find a formula or method that duplicates theses patterns, you have a way to predict the "random" numbers that the machine will generate.
Try it! Library of Babel
Jason finds way to recycle used oil
gives a more technical view of the current discovery (its a prng by the way)
-=DaveHowe=-
1) Generating the pad initially, and
2) exchanging the pad.
1) Generating the one-time pad is easy with a hardware noise generator such as an avalanche diode. Marx makes a USB dongle that has a true white noise generator. Just pump the noise into a file, walla!
2) Exchanging pads is not needed, as the one-time pad can be used in a symetric scheme, just a simple XOR will do fine. You only have to transfer the pad one way. Unfortunately, that is a problem that has no good solution.
Yup, all the tell-tale signs are there:
My guess is, he found some "smooth noise" generator and thought that it would make a good source of "random numbers", used, e.g., as a key schedule algorithm, and as soon as the patent is published (which it will be, thanks to the dumb patent office), it will be broken (it probably has a short "key" to set initial conditions, which will be easy to break) and this guy will be forgotten.
Though the cartoon connection is kinda cute and might get some press attention.
Next?
Specifically, we have the unbreakable claim warning sign, and even more specifically, this is almost certainly one of the one -time pad errors: There's also the technobabble, secret algorithms, and revolutionary breakthrough warning signs.
I hope they enjoy the $20,000 patent, 'cause it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Check out One Time Deck: the world's most wasteful encryption scheme. The key size (in expressible values) grows with the factorial of the message size (also in expressible values, not bits).
Basically, your key is the equivalent of a randomly shuffled deck of cards with each possible messages written on a card. Your ciphertext tells where to cut the deck to find the card with your message on it. Each deck is used for only one message, then destroyed. Hence the name.
It has the interesting property that if you don't have the deck, even if you know the plaintext exactly, any changes to the ciphertext will result in a completely random plaintext (except that it's not the same).
Anyways, since you don't want to become bored while watching the grass, i've got some green "equipment" you might find handy. My pager number is .... oh fuck, the Feds........
I have this vision of an FBI agent watching tons and tons of porn in his cubicle. The boss comes by and starts scolding him. He then says:
"Please calm down. It is possible to hide secret messages in images now. Here is a printout of a slashdot article about it. I am just looking for hidden terrorist messages in this porn found on Al-Quida PC's. I think her breasts are jiggling to a descernable pattern, so I am trying to plot the jiggle pattern here."
Boss: "Then why are you sweating like that?"
Table-ized A.I.
And I heard if you watch the Lion King with special "bin Ladin" glasses you can see the Twin Towers falling as soon as Simba watches his father die.
Snow White was used to plan the attacks....
Sheesh
Get your Unix fortune now!
I should probably have been more specific in my original posting. By unbreakable I mean information theoretically secure, a mathematically well-defined property which is in fact achievable and achieved by the One-Time Pad. I have given a rough definition here.
Even hardware random generators are prone to bias. For example, the germanium diode might generate more 1's than 0's. That knowledge alone may be enough to break messages. Thus it is not trivial to even create one time pads... they source of THAT data must also be random.
Another example... use the time between radioactive decay detects. This is theoretically random from quantum physics.... BUT.... there may be artifacts. For example, there will be a minimum time resolution of your detector. It may have hysteresis or dead times after a particle is detected.
As has been shown many times, cryptography isn't for the faint of heart. It also isn't for the foolish, like this kid's father.
The only good weather is bad weather.
It may be little information, but mathematically enought to say it's no longer unbreakable.
You might as well claim the same thing if the attacker knows that the plaintext is sensible ASCII-encoded English. That the attacker knows the character of the plaintext (and therefore has a wealth of statistical information about the plaintext) is one of the fundamental assumptions of cryptography.
The perfect secrecy of OTP is based on the secrecy and randomness of the key alone, it doesn't require an obscure or disordered encoding of the plaintext. Knowing some key bits gives you no clue about the value of other key bits.
Of course you must account for the information that can be inferred from the length of the ciphertext (and pad your plaintext to avoid any information leak). This problem is no greater or worse for compressed plaintexts than uncompressed ones.
It seems to me like having the first and last number the same doesn't compromise the security of the message one bit!
It compromises the security of the message exactly one bit (assuming that it's binary OTP). If the first and last bits of the ciphertext are the same, then you know that the first and last bits of the plaintext are the same, and vice versa. You gain one bit of information about it, and cut the number of possible plaintexts in half.
Cryptanalysis is based on statistical data. The attacker presumably can make reasonable guesses about the contents. So if they can guess the first bit with 70% probability, they also know the last bit with 70% certainty.
This kid could really use a copy of "RSA Laboratories' Frequently Asked Questions About Today's Cryptography" or "Applied Cryptography" or even "PGP DH vs. RSA FAQ". At the University of Dayton page on this discovery (https://alumni.udayton.edu/np_story.asp?storyID=7 84), he says that Triple-DES could be easily broken.
That is complete B.S.
Triple-DES is a 112-bit algorithm, and perhaps even stronger that Rjindael (AES), since it's been subjected to rigorous cryptanalysis for many, many years.
It seems as if the encryption technology might be secure, but without any information on it, I am very skeptical.
Yeah. I'm also confused why anyone would want a "personalized" crypto algorithm in the first place.
It's a very effective way to get something which isn't very secure. Since the process may modify how the program works.
Try writing a program that takes several hundred MB from /dev/random. You'll find its runtime depends on how much mouse movement and other user input is going on. I once ran a random acess file system simulation for class. I went to dinenr and came back and the stupid thing was stuck. I later emailed the prof to let him know he should use /dev/urandom instead of /dev/random if he's not hyper sensitive about the entropy content and needs time-critical random data.
Off hand, what PRNG does the Linux /dev/urandom use when it exhausts the entropy pool? My best bet is that OpenBSD uses Yarrow, but all bets are off with Linux.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.