Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Prof Cracks SHA-1 Data Encryption Scheme
Hades1010 writes to mention an article in the Epoch Times (a Chinese newspaper) about a brilliant Chinese professor who has cracked her fifth encryption scheme in ten years. This one's a doozy, too: she and her team have taken out the SHA-1 scheme, which includes the (highly thought of) MD5 algorithm. As a result, the U.S. government and major corporations will cease using the scheme within the next few years. From the article: " These two main algorithms are currently the crucial technology that electronic signatures and many other password securities use throughout the international community. They are widely used in banking, securities, and e-commerce. SHA-1 has been recognized as the cornerstone for modern Internet security. According to the article, in the early stages of Wang's research, there were other data encryption researchers who tried to crack it. However, none of them succeeded. This is why in 15 years Hash research had become the domain of hopeless research in many scientists' minds. "
This article is completely devoid of any real content. It just says she "cracked it" over and over, not explaining whether a crack is a collision, preimage, or other attack. It also seems technically inaccurate, saying that SHA-1 'includes' MD5? I know that no one RTFA, but c'mon, at least cover for a crappy article by having a good summary: this story has neither.
Besides; my suspicion is that if she's gone and cracked it, the odds are at least reasonable that the NSA and crew already had
Not necessarily. There are often times when major leaps like this are made because of the efforts of one exceptionally brilliant person. It doesn't matter if you have whole teams of really smart people working on a problem, because this one person will come along and break the field open in a new way. That seems to be what's happened here.
"Well said. I'm pretty sure that this is just the English translation of a Chinese state-run newspaper. (The "read original Chinese" link at the bottom gives this away.)"
Errr, you are aware that the Epoch Times is a virulently anti-Communist newspaper don't you? They're famous for doing some sort of 10-part history of Chinese Communism (which read like a lurid and hysterical diatribe. I picked up a copy once; I don't know much about the history of China but they had a summary of the Paris Commune of 1871 which was an utterly atrocious travesty of history). If anything, the Epoch times is far more likely to distort the facts in a manner that defames the Chinese government, hard as that may be to believe.
Not everything written in the Chinese language is censored by the Chinese government
"Do the editors read ANYTHING before posting!?"
I find the irony of THIS statement quite remarkable, given the above.
There is no other way to protect unpopular views. The whole purpose of tenure is to allow scientists with new or minority ideas that are outside of the scientific/political/economic orthodoxy to continue to do research in spite of the fact that their work can't get wide publication. We make them prove that they are competent by meeting the extremely high standards of the tenure review process - getting tenure is no cake walk - then we give them the freedom to follow research avenues without regard to how popular that area of research is, and without fear that unconventional avenues or conclusions will cost them their job.
Part of the price we pay for this is that some people will be lazy. Academia as a whole feels that this is worth the risk because:
1. The tenure review process will screen out the overwhelming majority of the lazy people - you simply can't get tenure if you're lazy - it's too damn hard.
2. Carrying a few lazy professors is more than worth the benefit of having a faculty that is unafraid to voice the truth as they see it without fear of reprisal from administration, established researchers in their field, powerful alumni, government, etc.
3. Knowing what work will lead to something "useful" is tantamount to being able to predict the future. The idea that one can tell in advance where important breakthroughs will come from or where they will lead is a bean counter's fantasy. Therefore we have to trust that extremely competent scientists when allowed to follow their own chosen research paths without coercion will come up with important results. It's worked for us so far.
Absolutely. I'm not in the least offended by what other people choose to do to themselves and with intelligently consenting partners. Amused sometimes, but not offended. I'm only offended by what people do to non-consenting partners or partners who cannot consent in a reasonably intelligent fashion. And in such cases, it is useful to know what is going on.
You said yourself: "we're helluva lot better at polluting the planet"... the culprit isn't technology. The culprit is people. Technology can clean up pollution, even eliminate it at its source in some cases. You're blaming the gun for the thoughts and actions of the person who decided to fire it, which is wrong. Guns and technology have no way to say "No, wait, don't do that!" It's not the same as when Bush orders a cop to pick someone up without a warrant; the action is evil, and the cop is evil for obeying because that cop could (and should) have said "no, this is wrong" and aborted the process. The lesson is: You can't blame intermediaries in any human action unless those intermediaries are also human.
Well, we call that the Government of the United States of America; they used to be controlled by a document we call the constitution, which laid a very nice groundwork for a government, but that era appears to be completely over.
Witness Commerce clause absurdities, 2nd amendment erosion, ex post facto law and punishment, phone tapping, mail opening, "free speech zones", theft of land for tax revenue, government backing of religion in multiple venues, loss of habeas corpus, torture... and all these changes made in how we operate without the (supposedly) required constitutional hoop-jumping. The only question that remains is, what new way will they find to foul our nest?
How close are we, really, to becoming something that in no serious way resembles what the founders put in place? As this happens, from where does the government derive its authority? If it won't obey the constitution (and that seems very clear indeed), then how is the government going to justify any action it takes? I really don't understand how a government official can look a run of the mill citizen in the eye today. But again, we're talking about the actions of human beings, not the capabilities of a government. Just because you have databases doesn't mean you have to make no-fly lists; you could have a list of people who need cancer surgery, instead.
Technology, inanimate objects, ideas - even horrifying ideas - these aren't the enemy. People without ethics that take other people's rights into account, or with canned ethics based on apocalyptic religious bullshit like G. W. Bush, those people are the problem.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.