Quantum Encryption Implementation Broken

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum Encryption Implementation Broken

Posted by timothy on Wednesday December 30, 2009 @09:37AM from the but-this-was-a-quantum-drawing-board dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Professor Johannes Skaar's Quantum Hacking group at NTNU have found a new way to break quantum encryption. Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws. Their technique relies on a particular way of blinding the single photon detectors so that they're able to perform an intercept-resend attack and get a copy of the secret key without giving away the fact that someone is listening. This attack is not merely theoretical, either. They have built an eavesdropping device and successfully attacked their own quantum encryption hardware. More details can be found in their conference presentation."

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Successfully broken before anybody was using it! by FooAtWFU · 2009-12-30 09:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Now that's efficiency for you, folks!

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
This is why we can't have nice things by PixieDust · 2009-12-30 09:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Can we please get to play with some of these emerging technologies before someone goes breaking them? This is why we can't have nice things! You intellectuals and your tinkering....
1. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Sique · 2009-12-30 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  And there was me thinking that attempting to break something deliberately is part of the playing :)
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
2. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by jinxed_one · 2009-12-30 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point is to make sure the implementation can't be broken BEFORE they distribute it and have to recall/replace/handle frivolous lawsuits/etc.
3. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Arancaytar · 2009-12-30 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  But encryption technologies are special toys; they're made to be broken, see. Consider them as pinatas.
4. Re:This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  And there was me thinking that attempting to break something deliberately is part of the playing :)
  That's why my mom won't let you come over any more, even though I'm mostly better now.
And they call it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-12-30 09:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Schrödinger's Hack!
1. Re:And they call it... by Itninja · 2009-12-30 10:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sure, they call it that....and they don't. It's complicated.
  
  --
  I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
2. Re:And they call it... by dazjorz · 2009-12-30 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Until you check your terminal, it's both broken...and it isn't... You both have the plaintext, and you don't...
3. Re:And they call it... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Upon closer inspection you'll find that jokes already dead.
  ...or not.
4. Re:And they call it... by ZarathustraDK · 2009-12-30 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  You both have the plaintext, and you don't...
  Comic Sans?
  
  --
  If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Broken by Wowsers · 2009-12-30 09:44 · Score: 4, Funny

There's only one way to look at this story, the quantum encryption may or may not be broken, or maybe partially so, so both cases could be true at the same time.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.
1. Re:Broken by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  This post may or may not be funny, or both at the same time.
2. Re:Broken by Triela · 2009-12-30 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  And not only must the encryption work with hardware which is very small, it must also work with hardware which is very large.
3. Re:Broken by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:10 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Like that darn fat cat!
4. Re:Broken by Verdatum · 2009-12-30 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? The villain from Rescue Rangers?
  (upon reading it, I apologize for this comment).
lame... silly kids. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 09:45 · Score: 0

broken even easier by capturing the data prior to encryption. HEH.
Fond memories by temcat · 2009-12-30 09:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Hehe, that master student you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago :-)
1. Re:Fond memories by geekoid · 2009-12-30 09:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You went back in time and took a picture of yourself?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Fond memories by temcat · 2009-12-30 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, I took it in advance so as not to have to go back in time :-) I did my master thesis while working on that project in 1999-2000.
3. Re:Fond memories by PotatoFiend · 2009-12-30 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe, that master student you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago
  
  Even so, blue jean jackets have been out of style since the 80s, dude.
  
  --
  "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
4. Re:Fond memories by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  He must've taken his mommy to college with him so that she could dress him every morning.
5. Re:Fond memories by Verdatum · 2009-12-30 10:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Holy crap, the plot of the movie Primer suddenly makes sense to me!
6. Re:Fond memories by temcat · 2009-12-30 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like I cared about being trendy, I almost despised that back then, which you can also notice by my haircut or, more precisely, by lack of one. You almost guessed about the jacket, it's a Soviet product from '92 or so. Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely.
7. Re:Fond memories by gandhi_2 · 2009-12-30 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit, if you tell me you weren't listening to Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet while wearing that outfit...then we all know you are full of it.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
8. Re:Fond memories by EkriirkE · 2009-12-30 13:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Note the email subdomain? .no
  European fashion was still in the (USA) 80's back then.
  
  --
  from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
9. Re:Fond memories by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, it's Levis...it doesn't matter where it was made. Kind of like McDonald's french fries.
10. Re:Fond memories by temcat · 2009-12-30 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly not Levis, just a cheap Soviet copy :-)
Nothing to see here. Move along. by nacturation · 2009-12-30 09:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of? Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
1. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 10:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because the algorithm is almost never the weakness in any security system? This was snake oil, sold as "provably perfect encryption" which is a total load of rubbish. Anyhow, quantum crypto wasn't about a algorithm, but about a silly claim that one can use technology to make communication intercepts "provably impossibly". Bullshit - making one link of a chain really really strong doesn't make the chain meaningfully stronger.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
2. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by zmaragdus · 2009-12-30 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Quite so. A good topic to research (in addition to side-channel attacks) for more information on is TEMPEST (protecting against "spurious emmisions" that may leak information). From there you can find information on many, many methods of side-channel attacks. Examples include measuring the emag field from keyboard presses, monitoring CPU times & power consumptions, reading screens in reflections, and many more.
  Again, this article highlights that all the software in the world can't protect against some hardware attacks. (For example, a hardware keylogger between the keyboard and the computer.)
  
  --
  (((dB)))
3. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by QuantumG · 2009-12-30 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of an important first step to improving the entire chain is to improve individual steps in the chain.
  In any case, both you and the article miss the point, the attack site protected by any form of cryptography is the middle, not the ends.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
4. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Trails · 2009-12-30 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think this is more of a typical disconnect between academic types and more practical types.
  Quantum crypto is an enhancement over current non-crypto methods, it is (for the moment) provably unbreakable. For most applications, the difference is trivial since (barring the NSA), breaking current encryption isn't impossible, so much as impractical in the extreme.
  That's an interesting, if academic, point. As you mention, most compromises these days are not defeating the encryption algo, so much as social engineering or "side channel" attacks.
  Somehow this got turned into "perfect security for electronic communication", which, clearly, it isn't. By academics, at least, I don't think it was billed that way though.
5. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but improving the already-strongest link of a chain get you nowhere. And cryptography is only ever the weakness of any security system if you do it yourself. A security system that touts "better cryptography" is almost certainly a scam.
  Of course, "quantum cryptography" is not cryptography, it's a means of detecting eavesdropping - and the product did not deliver on its promises.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
6. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 10:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You do realize that "quantum crypto" is not any kind of cryptography, right? (Beyond the most general sense of "secret writing", I guess). It's a "provably secure" means of detecting eavesdroppers. Except, as with most "provably secure" systems, it turned out to be flawed.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
7. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by QuantumG · 2009-12-30 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. If I use ssh to connect from my linux machine to yours and you say "ha! I've broken your ssh connection because I can sniff your pty." I'll just say congratulations, kick you off my linux machine and go back to using ssh.
  Stop being a dick.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
8. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't understand your point. A company is selling a system marketed as "quantum cryptography" and "provably secure". This commercial product was broken by a fairly normal approach to breaking comm security. "Quantum cryptography" is a marketing buzzword term (buzzphrase?) largely created by this company.
  I suppose pedantically one could say "a commercial appliance marketed as provably secure quantum cryptography was broken", but most people understood the intended meaning: this much hyped "quantum crypto" doodad is no real improvement in practical comm security.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Verdatum · 2009-12-30 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...but he's right. "the algorithm is almost never the weakness in any security system" it's social engineering, and buffer overflows, and small keysizes and lots of other exploitable vectors. I fail to see the need for this sort of staw man argument.
10. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by QuantumG · 2009-12-30 11:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Gah, this is so frustrating.
  Your interpretation of reality isn't truth.. got that?
  The researchers did not break this device to expose anyone's snake oil.. they just demonstrated a flaw with the expectation that it would be fixed, improving the device.
  If the device was using traditional public key encryption they could have done the exact same attack.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
11. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by techno-vampire · 2009-12-30 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Except, as with most "provably secure" systems,
  The "proof" turned out to be flawed.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
12. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If the device was using traditional public key encryption they could have done the exact same attack.
  That was pretty much my point too. I have no insight into the motivation of the researchers, but this product is snake oil becuase it can be broken by the exact same attacks that work against a system not "protected by the Magic of Quantum(TM) - now with extra magic!" The thing that differentiates this product from competing comm security products adds no security in practice.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
13. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by QuantumG · 2009-12-30 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that you failed logic.
  The claim is that quantum cryptographic systems are not susceptible to some of the attack vectors that public key cryptography systems are susceptible to... primarily, key factoring... the fact that all cryptographic systems share some attack vectors doesn't invalidate that claim.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
14. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-30 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that you failed logic.
  In reply to your many ad-hominum attacks: you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
  
  The claim is that quantum cryptographic systems are not susceptible to some of the attack vectors that public key cryptography systems are susceptible to... primarily, key factoring... the fact that all cryptographic systems share some attack vectors doesn't invalidate that claim.
  The claim that quantum cryptographic systems provide more security is bogus: further hardening the strongest element in a security system does not provide additional security. Demonstrating vulnerability to other attack vectors does invalidate nonsense claims like "provable security".
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
15. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Thinboy00 · 2009-12-30 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Quantum cryptography" is a marketing buzzword term (buzzphrase?) largely created by this company.
  What company? QC is still in the "kinda theoretical" phase right now (i.e. the five to ten years to market point)
  
  --
  $ make available
16. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Thinboy00 · 2009-12-30 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think the original claim of QC went something like this:
  zomg Quantum Computing will be done eventually and then they'll be able to trivially break most/all modern ciphers, even if implemented in a perfect way! There will not even be theoretical security! I know, lets take this old, unbreakable cipher and invent a method of key distribution that is perfectly secure in theory! That way, by the time QComputing is invented, QCrypto will have rendered it moot.
  Executive summary: "provable security using real world hardware" was never a goal.
  
  --
  $ make available
17. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by QuantumG · 2009-12-30 13:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  further hardening the strongest element in a security system does not provide additional security
  Of course it does. You're taking a rule of thumb and holding it up as gospel while completely misunderstanding the purpose of it.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
18. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of? Cryptographers have been doing side channel attacks for a long time.
  OK, so they broke it based on the hardware. If something is theoretically unbreakable but beakable in practice, then its an implementation flaw... Better hardware is needed...
19. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by owlstead · 2009-12-30 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Because the algorithm is almost never the weakness in any security system? "
  Come again? MD5, MiFare, single DES, WEP, GSM - just a bunch of algorithms and systems that are broken because of the algorithm.
  "This was snake oil, sold as "provably perfect encryption" which is a total load of rubbish."
  No, provably perfect encryption does exist (one time pads for instance). You are probably trying to say that "provably perfect security systems" are a load of rubbish. Many algorithms are provably secure, but they rely on a certain view of the world which is unobtainable.
  "Anyhow, quantum crypto wasn't about a algorithm, but about a silly claim that one can use technology to make communication intercepts "provably impossibly".
  Well, I don't think the idea behind quantum crypto has been invalidated, just this implementation.
  "Bullshit - making one link of a chain really really strong doesn't make the chain meaningfully stronger."
  As long as they can make it impossible to hack anything between the end points - in such a way that the end points are a useful distance apart they have met their goal. It seems though they did not accomplish this.
  If quantum cryptography of this kind makes any sense practically or commercially is another matter. Personally I would rather invest in other parts of a real world security system for sure. Just replace the ends with AES 256 master keys and create short lived session keys using any authenticated key agreement protocol.
  From an academic point of view it is interesting though.
20. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by amRadioHed · 2009-12-30 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Cryptography with current technology is a strong link in the chain, but with advances in quantum computing factorization will be easy enough that current ciphers will no longer provide strong security. This is when quantum encryption will have a big advantage over current methods.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
21. Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. by lgw · 2009-12-31 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Crypto systems based on one-time pads have been broken repeatedly in the cold war - yes I guess I meant that "provably perfect security systems" are rubish, but really "provably perfect real-world anything" is rubbish.
  Quantum "crytography" (really, quantum key distribution) is a solution looking for a problem. The problem of a corrupt insider attacking a physical listening device to a cable in a secure area is real (if rare), but the problem there is the corrupt insider, not the optical cable, and hardening against that one specific attack vector has such minimal payoff - there are just so many ways a corrupt insider can screw you; it's a problem that needs a human solution.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-12-30 09:53 · Score: 1

Exactly. More proof that Firewalls and Antiviruses can never keep up with hackers.
Prototype fallible, news at 11. by ground.zero.612 · 2009-12-30 09:54 · Score: 1

Truly nothing to see here.

--
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
1. Re:Prototype fallible, news at 11. by temcat · 2009-12-30 10:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not a specific prototype but a whole class of QC setups.
I've heard this before by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-12-30 09:55 · Score: 1

"Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect"
And Communism works, IN THEORY.
1. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Just like capitalism.
2. Re:I've heard this before by inviolet · 2009-12-30 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And Communism works, IN THEORY.
  No it doesn't. The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members. This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but was known in advance to fail for larger groups. The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
  As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker. He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.
  
  --
  FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
3. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  You did an excellent job of proving yourself wrong :)
4. Re:I've heard this before by lgw · 2009-12-30 10:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology. The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time. Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced. Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.
  At any given point in time, the only reason capitalism does any better job of creating a "synergistic arrangement of worker, raw materials, and the means of production" is that capitalism self-corrects for corruption faster (companies fail faster than governments). In practice this is a minor factor as successful companies quickly infiltrate government to create regulations that raise barriers to competition (markets are never free for long).
  Over generations, however, the advance of technology is huge - far more important that the distribution of wealth to one's standard of living. And free markets (to the exten they exist) are far and away the best stimulus for new technology. This is why established firms so often seek government regulation: to prevent (or at least slow) disruptive technology.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
5. Re:I've heard this before by Rising+Ape · 2009-12-30 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Free markets by themselves are not enough for new technology. In fact, historically, a good deal of new technology was motivated by military requirements. Additionally, revolutionary technology (e.g. the transistor) depends on a background knowledge of science which is generally *not* obtained by companies seeking a profit, but by government funded research.
  Free markets are good for developing products though, and improving existing technologies.
6. Re:I've heard this before by lgw · 2009-12-30 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  We may be saying the same thing, but history is full of amazing inventions that sat idle for centuries because in that culture in that time there was insufficient incentive to turn the invention into a product. It's not that a free market somehow magically sparks research, but that it provides both a huge incentive to transform research from the abstract to the practical, and a mechanism for raising the capital to do so.
  The actual amount of money spent on fundamental research is nearly trivial in the scheme of things - totally necessary, but never a limiting economic factor. Anyone complaining about taxation being used to fund research is simply bad at math (but it's sort of a non-sequitur from free markets).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
7. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 11:28 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  >>And Communism works, IN THEORY.
  >No it doesn't
  Agreed, and for yet another reason: even if humans are all saints
  and DO happily sacrifice for society, the problem of coordinating
  dispersed knowledge can't be solved. For details, google
  "calculation debate".
8. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that by saying that communism doesn't work (from a capitalism view) is saying that it actually does work.
  If you take a look at what you just said; by creating incentives you drive human behavior.
  I know it's hard to wrap your head around it and see it both ways if your own behavior has been modulated in either direction, I couldn't begin to explain it and I wouldn't if I could.
9. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-30 11:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members.
  
  No, actually, it doesn't. Like democracy (which it is, in a sense, an analog of, addressing economic rights instead of political rights) it relies on the idea that humans will work for the betterment of themselves, individually, so that widely and equally distributing power among the population will result in the broadest possible benefit. As with democracy, one of the places that communism breaks down in practice (and, in fact, is "broken by design" in all real-world attempts to implement anything called "Communism", which are based not directly on Marx and Engels work, but on Lenin's adaptation which introduce the idea of a priviledged self-selected elite working -- in Leninist theory -- on behalf of the masses, because it was intended to work in places that hadn't met the prerequisites Marx had identified for a Communist revolution. This replacement of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with what amounted to a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat was pretty contrary to the whole idea of Communism, and in theory as well as in practice is very similar to fascist corporatism.)
  
  The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
  The critique of capitalism at the center of Marx's communism relies, in part, on that fact; it is particularly central to the idea that the "alienation of labor" is a social problem as well as a personal problem for workers. It is true that it is a common criticism (from very early times -- the criticism is specifically addressed in the Communist Manifesto) that Communism would do away with personal incentive because it would abolish property. But, while the Manifesto talks about eliminating "bourgeois property", it specifically draws an analogy to the destruction of feudal property with the creation of "bourgeois property". The Manifesto, on its own, lays out some of how Communists sought to transform the model of property -- particularly, Communists sought an end to private ownership of land in favor of renting from the State, and to end the heritability of wealth; just as what Communists refer to as "bourgeois" property involved the transition to entailments and other encumbered forms of ownership as the norm for property rights -- particularly in land -- the Communist model of property was essentially and end to fee simple ownership and other permanent rights as the dominant norm in favor of life or (particularly in the case of real property) term interests. The Manifesto clearly sees the mode of property it adopts as providing personal economic incentives -- and actually providing personal economic incentives that are better at promoting economic progress than those produced by "borgeois" property just as the "bourgeois" property model was seen as doing compared to feudal property. One can certainly argue that the Communist model is wrong about how the personal incentives would work out in the environment its programs proposed, but it is clearly wrong to say that the theory of Communism failed to recognize that personal economic incentives are a primary driver of human behavior, since that observation is at the center of Communist theory.
10. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-30 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced.
  Are you sure that criticism wasn't made specifically as a critique of how automation worked, from the point of view of labor-hours of income that had to be exchanged for a given quantity of goods, specifically in a capitalist society (and, remember, Marx was critiquing 19th Century capitalism, not modern "capitalism" in which every "capitalist" state has -- largely to address the same ills of 19th century capitalism that Marx critiqued -- adopted a wide variety of state programs, many of which are closely related to specific recommendations in the Communist Manifesto.)
  
  Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods
  Insofar as that is true, how is that a benefit of capitalism?
11. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-30 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, and for yet another reason: even if humans are all saints
  and DO happily sacrifice for society,
  Which, incidentally, Communism is premised on the observation that they aren't and don't...
  
  the problem of coordinating dispersed knowledge can't be solved.
  What, exactly, does that have anything to do with the theory of Communism?
12. Re:I've heard this before by ravenshrike · 2009-12-30 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism by definition doesn't work perfectly. Instead it is theorized to cause the least amount of damage. The issue is once the .gov starts picking favorites, it stops being actual capitalism.
13. Re:I've heard this before by ravenshrike · 2009-12-30 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well someone has to decide what is needed, and without price indicators there's no unconscious mechanism doing so
14. Re:I've heard this before by Bigjeff5 · 2009-12-30 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally, revolutionary technology (e.g. the transistor) depends on a background knowledge of science which is generally *not* obtained by companies seeking a profit, but by government funded research.
  Ummm... the transistor was invented at Bell Labs, which was a subsidiary of Bell Communications, which was a private company. Bell Labs is still a private institution, and their discoveries are intended to produce items for a profit. They are simply smart enough to realize you can't necessarily tell someone what to invent, and put up with thousands of unmarketable inventions to get the few hugely profitable ones.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
15. Re:I've heard this before by Bigjeff5 · 2009-12-30 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Insofar as that is true, how is that a benefit of capitalism?
  I believe he simply meant free markets, but the free market is the cornerstone of capitalism.
  For a good comparison, look at the Cold War and Communist Russia vs Capitalist America. The Russian standard of living was dropping because Communism does not provide an incentive to increase worker efficiency (other than what you can get by tyranical means), whereas in the US the economy was growing more efficient and the standard of living was skyrocketing. Both the US and Russia were tired and worn after the war, but the free market system and the fact that so many women had joined the work force meant the US economy boomed. The only real difference for Russia was a lack of a free market. The average standard of living in Russia didn't improve until the markets were opened up and made more free.
  I am of course ignoring the space race and nuclear arms race, which had little immediate impact on the economy of either country. This was purely government driven for both countries, and as such they ran at similar efficiencies, Russia even beating us to space, but not the moon.
  All this to say, Communism looks really nice on paper, but fails once it grows beyond a relatively small size. That isn't to say as Capitalists we don't recognize modern ills and inequalities and attempt to mitigate them, but really it just tends to make things worse, despite good intentions. Simply try to prevent abuse, don't force kindness, and I think things will take care of themselves nicely.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
16. Re:I've heard this before by Rising+Ape · 2009-12-30 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but it was dependent on the understanding of the laws of nature, such as quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, electronic structure of semiconductors etc. While Bell Labs undoubtedly did a lot of valuable science, it built on what had been done previously. Without that background, it would not have been possible.
  In any case, Bell Labs did not operate in a free market - it was part of a very large regulated monopoly. Generally, competing private companies do not have the resources to do basic research - they can only afford things which will lead to products in the near future. Anything non-patentable is no good, as it will help the competitors as much as themselves. Since AT&T was split up, the research output is greatly diminished.
17. Re:I've heard this before by Bigjeff5 · 2009-12-30 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  In any case, Bell Labs did not operate in a free market...
  But they did, AT&T did not, but Bell Labs entire purpose was to expand it's reach beyond its limited monopoly over phone systems. They had no monopoly anywhere else, but they had the resources to attempt expansion and create new competing products.
  It was the free market that drove that, not government funding. The truth is, the amount government funded research is pitiful compared to private research, and large companies - like AT&T back in the day - would pick up a large portion of the slack if government funding wasn't covering the basic research.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
18. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  "Communism", which are based not directly on Marx and Engels work, but on Lenin's adaptation
  Let me add that Stalin wrote the only official interpretation of the Lenin's ideas. No other interpretation was allowed.
19. Re:I've heard this before by lgw · 2009-12-30 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism stimulates technological advance better than any system that has ever been tried, largely because it combines a huge incentive for turning new ideas into products with the means of raising the capital to do so.
  At it's root, capitalism is simply a system for determining who controls the means of production: assigning that control to those who have done well at that task in the past (because wealth is the primary means for gaining control of the means of production, and making good decisions about the use of the means of production is the primary means for increasing wealth). Capitalism has strong positive feedback for those who choose to produce products that consumers actually want, which strongly correlates with finding ways to increase the consumer's standard of living for the same amount of consumer wealth.
  In other words, there's a huge incentive under capitalism to find new ways to improve the standard of living of your consumers (because that sells really well), and people who do so gain more control over the means of production over time (because you buy the means of production with money, instead of political favoritism). It's a great feedback loop, though in practice is always subverted to some degree by the political favoritism thing as free markets never stay free.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
20. Re:I've heard this before by Bigjeff5 · 2009-12-30 13:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You defend the idea of Communism, yet hint at exactly why it doesn't work. Pure Communism cannot and will not ever work for the same reasons that pure Democracy cannot and will not work - natural cooperation breaks down when the group size becomes so large that individuals do not know every other member of the group on a personal level. Our congress would not function if it got much larger than it is. If it grew to over 1,000 members our government would almost certainly collapse, as there would be no way to prevent the tyranny of the masses.
  Incidentally, Capitalism doesn't get it right either, but it much better accounts for human nature than Communism does on a large scale. Pure Capitalism misses the mark because it assumes we are completely self-serving, seeking only for our own best advantage. This is not the case - there is altruism within us, and while not as prevalent as our self-serving nature, it tends to screw up the Capitalist ideal if not taken account for. Incidentally this altruistic streak really screws with Game Theory, making it completely unreliable. In any case, Capitalism does not correct the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor, however it does improve -everyone's- position, making a poor capitalist much richer than a poor communist.
  Regarding Carl Marx, I commit a conscious logical fallacy with any of his ideas ever since I did a research paper on the man in junior high. He was a serious piece of shit human being who would rather bemoan his status in the world than get off his ass and work to provide food for his starving family. I have absolutely no respect for him or any of his ideas, and you will never convince me of the value his concepts while invoking his name. When I read about him, all I really wanted to do was kick his whiny little ass. Incidentally, I feel the same way about-able bodied people who make excuses about why they cannot work or need support when I see for-hire signs not a half a block down from where they panhandle. That Carl Marx was able to gain world wide notariety and respect probably for a number of centuries while being a piece of shit human being just pisses me off even more.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
21. Re:I've heard this before by Rising+Ape · 2009-12-30 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Bell Labs got funding thanks to AT&T's regulated return on investment - AT&T couldn't lose by funding it. Its principal role was to support the telephone business, and as they could recoup the investment from their telephone operations, shielded from competition, even tangentially related research could be justified. That was the driver for the research, and wouldn't happen in a free market - a phone company without research spending could out-compete them, so only research with a reasonably short term economic benefit could be justified. So no real science at all. Would we have got a transistor under such an environment, or just a really advanced vacuum tube?
  Your last remark on the relative spending on research may be true for applied research and product development, but basic research with no obvious application? Which profit-minded company operating in a free market would fund that? Which do?
22. Re:I've heard this before by owlstead · 2009-12-30 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is theorized to do the least amount of damage? To what? To the earth? Or to the people living on it?
  It sure helps in getting a relatively wealthy society quickly, but I would not call anything the current world does "the least amount of damage". Quite the opposite actually.
23. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Communism looks good on paper if everyone plays nice and actually wants to help each other all the time. It fails to take into account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  The idea is everyone acts a 'little more lazy' as there is no real reason to do better. Joe sees Jim gets the exact same reward for work even though Joe did more. So Joe lowers his productivity to match Jim. Rinse and repeat thousands of times. You eventually have to enforce working at the crack of a whip to get the original level of productivity.
  You do not see communes anymore (they were rather popular in the 60s) in the united states. These groups were 'rather small'. But they usually failed because of laziness that started with one or two individuals and the it spreads completely to all parts of the group. The negative reinforcement is a cancer that is hard to get rid of once it takes root.
24. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-30 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  You defend the idea of Communism
  Actually, no, I didn't. I pointed out flaws in the particular mischaracterization of Communism.
  
  Pure Communism cannot and will not ever work for the same reasons that pure Democracy cannot and will not work - natural cooperation breaks down when the group size becomes so large that individuals do not know every other member of the group on a personal level.
  As I pointed out, Communism doesn't really on cooperation, like democracy -- in the modern, liberal, limited form -- it relies on setting up the structure of incentives so that the natural human tendency to seek personal advantage produces social benefit.
  
  Incidentally, Capitalism doesn't get it right either, but it much better accounts for human nature than Communism does on a large scale.
  Merely asserting that does not make it true.
  
  Pure Capitalism misses the mark because it assumes we are completely self-serving, seeking only for our own best advantage.
  That's a principle of the rational actor model of human behavior, to be sure, but its not really essential to capitalism (nor, to the extent it is, is it something that distinguishes it from Communism, which doesn't really rely on it any less than capitalism does.)
  
  This is not the case - there is altruism within us, and while not as prevalent as our self-serving nature, it tends to screw up the Capitalist ideal if not taken account for.
  The biggest problem with extreme laissez-faire (I won't say "pure", because as a theoretical construct its actually fairly new, and exist mostly as an after-the-fact justification of the excesses that -- among others -- Communists criticized in the 19th century) capitalism isn't that it sees people as principally self-serving, but that it overlooks the limits of the implications of power imbalances, imperfect information, externalities, and other situations that cause market failure, and that it ignores basic results of game theory, like the Tragedy of the Commons.
  
  Incidentally this altruistic streak really screws with Game Theory, making it completely unreliable.
  Actually, Game Theory is, rather than "completely unreliable", experimentally shown to be a pretty good model of how people behave when certain basic external conditions (perfect information about costs and rewards, immediate rather than distant results, etc.) Where it becomes difficult to apply in practice is because, in the real world, those ideal conditions are usually missing to a greater or lesser degree.
  
  Regarding Carl Marx, I commit a conscious logical fallacy [...]
  Without addressing the validity of your perception of Marx, that's the kind of thing you'd do better to learn to get over rather than self-righteously bragging about
25. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-30 20:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I believe he simply meant free markets, but the free market is the cornerstone of capitalism.
  That changes the claim, but doesn't justify either the original or the revised version.
  
  For a good comparison, look at the Cold War and Communist Russia vs Capitalist America.
  Russia was -- when the USSR was founded -- something like a half-century or more behind Western Europe and the US technology, and probably two centuries socially. And was devastated by war (like most of Europe, but unlike the US.) It then went through several years of civil war that further wrecked the econom, made a brief attempt under the NEP to build a sustainable economy without an immediate threat of major war, then returned to war mobilization for the short term in the 1930s, was again -- like much of Europe and again unlike the US -- devastated by war again, and then got into a global economic and military competition with an opposing block that was far ahead in starting position.
  So, even if Leninist/Stalinist Russia was a good study in Communist theory (which, given how radically Leninism rewrote Marxism with no real theoretical basis, only the recognition that Russia wasn't in the condition which Marxist theory saw as a precondition for the socialism that was the first step to Communism, is a pretty hard case to make), and the US was a good study in Capitalist theory (which, given that like most advanced economies, the US from the mid-20th century was a mixed economy, is also a hard case to make), the comparison between the two in direct competition -- given the difference in starting conditions -- wouldn't be a particularly good way to compare the theoretical systems in any broad way.
26. Re:I've heard this before by weicco · 2009-12-30 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  This conversation, as entertaining it is, is a little bit futile. First I've understood that there was a lot of arguing about if these theories can be tested at all or should they be announce as pseudo-science or something. I think even Marx finally acknowledged that you can't test communism (or capitalism) on paper.
  Which brings me to my second point, which is pretty much derived from the first point. Now if you can't test communism anywhere but in practice, and all the tests (USSR, Cuba, what else is there?) shows that it's failing miserably, then one could (should?) come to the conclusion that communism simply does not work. Empirical proof, well, proves it. USSR even had to enforce communism by force and that's why they had big weapon manufacturing going on which pretty much ruined their economy.
  I have plenty of other opinions against communism but my English isn't so good that I could express them clearly. But I think that my second point above incorporates them all nicely together :)
  
  --
  You don't know what you don't know.
27. Re:I've heard this before by SparafucileMan · 2009-12-30 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's the dumbest explanation of communism I've ever heard. You must be an academic.
28. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 21:21 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology.
  I would have though that Marx's main flaw was that he saw the problem of the workers not receiving the fruits of their labor and tried to solve it by implementing a system in which you did not own the fruits of your labor. As such, communism completes the problem it sets out to solve.
  From a perspective of software engineering, the equivalent would be solving file corruption by preventing file creation. Now that filthy capitalist operating system can't destroy parts of the files!
29. Re:I've heard this before by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
  Which incidentally is also the reason libertarianism doesn't work.
30. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-31 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism stimulates technological advance better than any system that has ever been tried
  I don't think there is any evidence that capitalism does so better than "any system that has ever been tried", and particularly not better than the mixed economies employed by every major advanced nation on Earth today.
31. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2009-12-31 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Now if you can't test communism anywhere but in practice, and all the tests (USSR, Cuba, what else is there?) shows that it's failing miserably, then one could (should?) come to the conclusion that communism simply does not work.
  
  The thing called "Communism" that was "tested in practice" in the USSR, Cuba, etc., is at least as distant from pre-Lenin Communist theory as are the mixed economies to which the advanced nations of the West transitioned from 19th Century capitalism. (Leninism abandoned the starting conditions which were necessary prerequisites for the socialist transition which was the first step to Communism, and altered the methodology to suit nations which didn't have the necessary starting conditions, whereas western mixed economies largely avoided embracing the long-term goal of the socialist state "withering away" and didn't implement the more extreme changes in property relations -- abolition of real property and inheritance -- while most often adopting central regulation rather than appropriation as the means of acheiving public control of essential industries [though nationalization of some key industries in some Western regimes did occur].)
  It is at least as wrong to say that the failure of USSR and other Leninist regimes proves that Communist theory is unworkable as to say that the success of modern mixed economies proves that it is correct.
32. Re:I've heard this before by lgw · 2009-12-31 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, every economy is a mix of course - even totalitarian communist states have been a mix of the government-run economy and the black market. But the "degree of capitalism" and the long term rate of economic growth (with technological innovation being the primary cause of that) are directly correlated.
  I think people have very strange idea about what capitalism is: if control of the means of production can be purchased for money, and you can make money by controlling the means of production, you have capitalism (to some extent: "control" is a matter of degree, of course). Moderate government regulation moves some control from the owner to the regulator, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind - as you say, a mixed economy - until you start seeing monopoly-by-law, or similar barriers to entry that allow political favor to dominate.
  But other alternatives (used for much of human history), where the control of the means of production are awarded based on political favor, or based on military success, totally suck for technological advancement, as the feedback loop isn't there.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
33. Re:I've heard this before by lgw · 2009-12-31 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that "pre-Lenin Communist theory" fails in practice because of Lenin. It's unworkable because it fails to adequately protect against corruption.
  You see this sort of thinking all the time with junior engineers: "we should do X, it's so much better than the way we do things today". Well, sure, every junior engineer for the past N years has pointed that out - but X fails because the real world is not a toy problem, and X provides no defense against non-obvious-but-common failure modes A, B, and C. Further, the reason why X looks better is that it doesn't carry the cost of protecting against A, B, or C. Duh.
  Capitalism has the virtue of a feedback loop that protects against corruption. That feature dominates its many flaws. The usual failure mode of capitalism is that it morphs into some other economic system over time when market leaders are allowed to break that feedback loop to prevent future competition, usually in the form of regulation to "protect the consumer" or "protect the worker" that shifts the basis of control over to political favor.
  Of course it's possible to create useful regulation without breaking the feedback loop that causes poorly run companies to fail, but it's also possible to have a benevolent dictator - it's just that no one has a system to make that result more likely than corruption.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
34. Re:I've heard this before by St.Creed · 2009-12-31 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  And Communism works, IN THEORY.
  No it doesn't. The theory of Communism proposes that humans will work for the betterment of their fellow tribe members. This works in small tribes where everyone knows each other (families and 'communes'), but was known in advance to fail for larger groups. The theory is bunk because it utterly fails to understand the fact that personal economic incentives are the primary driver of human behavior.
  As was Marx's derivation of the value of the worker. He completely missed the fact that the value-add comes from the synergistic arrangement (arranged by the entrepreneur) of worker, raw materials, and the means of production.
  You're wrong on both counts. As for the first, Marx merely said that it would be easier to work for the common good, as well as more efficient, in the long run. He wasn't proposing that humans worked for others for the hell of it, but because it would be the obvious smartest choice for themselves. Smarter than working for a capitalist who'd underpay you. And any self-employed entrepreneur knows it.
  As for the second, let's do a little experiment: remove the worker from the equation and see how much value the synergistic arrangement can add. Now remove the capitalist from the equation and see how much value the worker can add with the materials and the machine. For bonus points, figure out what happens when you remove the machine or the materials or add a few marketeers and laywers for extra fun into the synergistic arrangement :)
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
35. Re:I've heard this before by St.Creed · 2009-12-31 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Marx's main flaw was in how he valued technology. The man wasn't a starry-eyed idiot, but he just failed to see the value of automation - something not so obvious in his time. Marx directly claimed that machines cannot lower the cost of goods, because machines would naturally be sold for the value of the labor they replaced. Most of the benefit of capitalism is that technology reduces the cost of goods, so that our standard of living improves continuously over time despite the common man never getting a larger share of the wealth.
  Actually, a lot of Marx's writings are about automation being crucial to both capitalism and communism as it drives down the cost of production. Also, since any activity in capitalism is itself subject to the same laws, prices will go down as more capitalists produce the same machinery, using other machines: the skill and cost of labor to create new machines go down, hence their value and in the end their price also go down. See 'wages, price and profit' for details.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
36. Re:I've heard this before by weicco · 2009-12-31 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm aware of that but you missed the point and that's partly my fault since I wasn't clear about it. You can't test communism in theory and all empirical evidence shows it's simply not working, then one could come to conclusion that it doesn't matter a bit if it ever works in theory because it sure does not work in practice.
  
  --
  You don't know what you don't know.
37. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2010-01-04 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that "pre-Lenin Communist theory" fails in practice because of Lenin.
  That point is ridiculous. Leninism is a distinctly different theory.
  
  It's unworkable because it fails to adequately protect against corruption.
  Insofar as one accepts that it is fair to charge than a political/economic theory "fails to adequately protect against corruption" because one can create an distinctly different theory that incorporates some parts of the theory, and implement it, and have bad results, the charge can be made equally well against any political/economic theory. Its an argument that has no substance.
  
  Capitalism has the virtue of a feedback loop that protects against corruption.
  
  No, it doesn't. Its easy to point to many extraordinarily corrupt capitalist systems in history, which is one reason why the capitalist practice of the 19th Century (the thing originally called "capitalism") has been replaced in the developed world by modern mixed economy, which adopt many aspects of socialism -- some almost straight from the Communist Manifesto -- and which, while not corruption-free, has more checks against corruption than does capitalism, as such.
38. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2010-01-04 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well someone has to decide what is needed, and without price indicators there's no unconscious mechanism doing so
  The steps to revise the nature of property laid out in the Communist Manifesto doesn't eliminate price indicators -- it argues for essentially eliminating fee simple (perpetual) property in favor of a maximum of life estates in most forms of property (elimination of inheritance) and further eliminating private ownership of land in favor of private parties leasing land from the State -- so even if you limit the world of possible economic systems to "Communist" (i.e., a system which adopts the specific steps laid out in the Communist Manifesto) and "Capitalist" (the 19th Century practice in the developed countries of the West criticized by Marx), price indicators as a tool for coordinating knowledge aren't a unique feature of "capitalism".
39. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2010-01-04 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I would have though that Marx's main flaw was that he saw the problem of the workers not receiving the fruits of their labor and tried to solve it by implementing a system in which you did not own the fruits of your labor.
  If you look at the particular property-oriented policy recommendations Marx made for changes that should occur in the developed capitalist economies to implement the Communist program, they don't generally lay out a system in which an individual does not own the fruits of their own labor.
  The adaptation of Marxist theory by Lenin and others to work in places which were not developed capitalist economies -- which Marx saw as a prerequisite for moving on to socialism -- and the implementation of that adapted theory in the Soviet Union and those countries influenced by the Soviet Union surely did what you say, but that's not the same thing.
40. Re:I've heard this before by DragonWriter · 2010-01-04 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think people have very strange idea about what capitalism is: if control of the means of production can be purchased for money, and you can make money by controlling the means of production, you have capitalism (to some extent: "control" is a matter of degree, of course).
  Except for land in the narrow sense (which is often distinguished from capital), the Communist Manifesto did not include in its program for changes to the system of property (the elimination of capitalist property) the elimination of private ownership of the means of production (it did feature public control -- though it does not specify that the mechanism of that control be expropriation -- of certain infrastructure industries, like communication and transportation.)
  So, if we accept your definition of capitalism, a system which adopted all of the changes the Communist Manifesto suggested for developed capitalist countries would still be a "capitalist" system.
  I would suggest that this is an overbroad definition of "Capitalism" as an economic system, especially when contrasting it with "Communism" as such a system.
  (It may be a useful definition of "capitalism" as a feature of an economic system in some contexts.)
Professor Johannes Skaar's Quantum Hacking group by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 09:57 · Score: 0

...is the first group of hackers composed entirely of cats.
The Theory Complex by cosm · 2009-12-30 09:58 · Score: 1

We all know that theory can be notoriously variable when put into practice. In theory, quantum in particular, your wave function places your probability of spontaneously appearing in a parallel universe as magnificantly insignificant, yet its a "theorhetically possible". Knowing such, it should not be a surprise when such a powerful and not fully-understood "proof-of-concept" implementation is shown to be flawed, there are things we cannot master, and possibilities that cannot be ruled out. No security measure will ever be truly "perfect".

The best password encryption can be broken with a hard-hack, Louisville Sluggers provide a great brute-force technique.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
1. Re:The Theory Complex by v1 · 2009-12-30 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Louisville Sluggers provide a great brute-force technique.
  Could we consider that a "hardware failure"?
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
2. Re:The Theory Complex by v1 · 2009-12-30 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  OR better yet... a "hardware override"?
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
3. Re:The Theory Complex by colinrichardday · 2009-12-30 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not if applied to the head. That's why they call it rubber hose cryptograhy.
This is why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:05 · Score: 0

I TOLD YOU NOT TO LOOK AT IT!
Cat in the Hack by TiggertheMad · 2009-12-30 10:05 · Score: 1

It's ok, the message hasn't actually been decoded by a third party as long as you don't read it.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by jhoegl · 2009-12-30 10:08 · Score: 1

You said what now?
Stupid ass can't hack or nothin by mykos · 2009-12-30 10:12 · Score: 1

I got norton.
[in before people who don't get the reference]
1. Re:Stupid ass can't hack or nothin by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-12-30 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I got norton.
  [in before people who don't get the reference]
  Other things you were "in before":
  Humor
  
  --
  Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
2. Re:Stupid ass can't hack or nothin by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  Bedtime
Intercept-Resend Attack by Reason58 · 2009-12-30 10:27 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I have heard this term before. How does an "intercept-resend attack" differ from a man-in-the-middle attack?
1. Re:Intercept-Resend Attack by gnieboer · 2009-12-30 10:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Because Intellectual Property Hoggers International got a patent on a man-in-the-middle (TM) attack and the accountants at the university wouldn't pay the licensing fees, so they had to come up with a COMPLETELY NEW and different attack to avoid patent litigation, thus the incredibly novel "intercept-resend attack" (patent pending).
2. Re:Intercept-Resend Attack by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-12-30 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Man in the middle is merely attempting to read the information as it passes by. With Quantum encryption, reading the key could potentially change its value. (Hard to explain, but yes thats how it works).
  An intercept and Resend is rather taking the information as it comes in, not reading it, but duplicating it (this would be the tricky part, duplicating something without reading it) and then resending the information out.
speaking of "being ahead of the curve" by porky_pig_jr · 2009-12-30 10:27 · Score: 1

We don't have a quantum computer to provide the quantum encryption yet, but the encryption is already broken.
I think it's time for my beauty rest.
Should have gone wireless by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:35 · Score: 0

...oh, wait a second...nevermind.
What man can create man can circumvent. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 10:38 · Score: 0

To paraphrase E. E. (Doc) Smith.
What man can create man can circumvent.
I guess we need a lens...
1. Re:What man can create man can circumvent. by techno-vampire · 2009-12-30 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we need a lens...
  Especially when you consider that a lensman can read any communication no matter how encoded, encrypted or obfuscated. Even a one-time pad won't do any good once a lensman sees it.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
quantum encryption broken by blinding detectors... by Sir_Lewk · 2009-12-30 10:48 · Score: 1

Truly nothing to see here.
I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
In other words. by v(*_*)vvvv · 2009-12-30 11:05 · Score: 1

Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect...
Most things that are perfect *are* theoretical.

...real hardware isn't, and they exploit these flaws.
Most modern encryption isn't cracked by breaking the technology used to encrypt it. Security is only as secure as the pain tolerance of the person who knows the PIN, or the size of the visor that is suppose to hide the numbers you press from the person in line behind you.
Not really... by PopeRatzo · 2009-12-30 11:06 · Score: 1

Saying that this exploit "defeated" quantum encryption is like saying that a bank is not secure because someone got stuck up walking home after making a withdrawal.
The summary admits as much by saying "Even though quantum encryption is theoretically perfect, real hardware isn't".
Does anyone think that a laboratory quantum encryption setup is exactly the hardware that quantum encryption implementations are going to have when they are commercially available?
I've seen this before, where someone claims that product X or Y is "not secure" because they were able to obtain a passphrase via social engineering.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Not really... by drinkypoo · 2009-12-30 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen this before, where someone claims that product X or Y is "not secure" because they were able to obtain a passphrase via social engineering.
  It's not an entirely invalid argument, consider the difference between passphrase authentication vs. passphrase+smartcard (or securid tag, or...) If a single social engineering attack can compromise your network, it's not very secure.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Not really... by BrightSpark · 2009-12-30 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, I'm with you on this one. The mere existance of a key, the sharing of the key and then the subsequent movement or reproduction of the encrypted knowledge is all exploitable. Just watch any popular spy thriller where the leading security/scientist steals the data to save his hostaged wife/kids. The fact is, quantum encryption removes much of the key's weakness. Blame other security systems if physical security is weak.
You didn't RTFA, did you? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

> How is it news that a flawed implementation of a perfectly secure algorithm can be taken advantage of?
Because it's a very technically impressive hack that breaks the guarantees we love quantum encryption for (the idea that we can detect eavesdropping) and it does it in a fairly general way, using a weakness in an important piece of hardware (the single photon detectors) that's used in many quantum cryptography setups.
It may not be surprising to you, but the technology used isn't so trivial as you make it sound. Read their conference presentation if you want to see. The only reason I didn't write more of it into the summary is because I didn't want to butcher all the explanations when I could let you read the original.
- IDBIIP
The attack can be defended against easily. by Interoperable · 2009-12-30 11:13 · Score: 1

It uses bright light to blind the single-photon detectors. Determining that your detectors are saturated isn't that hard; if they get saturated, someone's probably performing this attack and you might not want to use the key. In fact, any reasonable QKD scheme should really try to ensure that the detectors are operating properly throughout the key distribution otherwise it's a giant security hole.

--
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
is quantum encryption really theoretically perfec by mr+exploiter · 2009-12-30 11:47 · Score: 1

Quantum encryption needs a second channel that isn't vulnerable to man in the middle attack. It doesn't say how to make it, it only says that it's needed. This channel is used to transmit the polarization used, and although it doesn't transmit information related to the unencrypted data, the entire algorithm depends on the integrity of this channel not being attacked (sniffed it's OK) .
In my opinion saying that quantum encryption is theoretically perfect is misleading, as there is no probe that this secure channel can be made.
Could someone please slowly explain to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 13:13 · Score: 0

Could someone please slowly explain to me why I cannot intercept and regenerate as part of a man in the middle attack.
In other words, how is it that Alice knows what she is sending, without either setting it in advance or detecting it?
1. Re:Could someone please slowly explain to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  It is inherently flawed... you need another secure channel, which would have to have been set up classically.
  But all the faddy computer scientists and second-rate mathematicians are going in for it, so try not to burst their funding bubble.
Of course not by A+nonymous+Coward · 2009-12-30 13:17 · Score: 1

If the third party reads it before you do, they are really the second party. Then you read it as the third party. Or wait long enough and be the fourth party.

--
Infuriate left and right
Taking the least publishable unit to the extreme by nedlohs · 2009-12-30 13:38 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Build quantum encryption system with a security flaw in the implementation.
2. Publish!
3. Exploit the flaw.
4. Publish!
5. Fix the flaw.
6. Publish!
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by owlstead · 2009-12-30 14:10 · Score: 1

Wasn't Switzerland using this form of quantum crypto for some election or something?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/2211205
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by davester666 · 2009-12-30 14:18 · Score: 1

No, this is a way to get another revenue stream. Sell the two 'secure' endpoints to person's A and B, sell third interception endpoint to NSA... Increase revenue by 50%!

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by Korin43 · 2009-12-30 14:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Too bad this has nothing to do with antivirus software or firewalls..
Re:Successfully broken before anybody was using it by Arancaytar · 2009-12-30 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I raise you a Vigenere - used by the Confederates after it was successfully broken by Babbage.
(Also, apparently they changed the password twice during the course of the war.)
I didn't know Slashdot was full of cryptanalysts by Dwonis · 2009-12-30 16:19 · Score: 0

Heh. There's an article about cryptography, and suddenly everyone on Slashdot is an expert.
I must be new here.
Quantum encryption ? by aepervius · 2009-12-30 19:10 · Score: 1

Could we stop it calling him quantum encryption and call it by what it is : Secure quantum transmission ? Encryption / decryption involve changing a message with a key as to make it non-decipherable. Quantum "encryption" do no such a things, it only allow sending a emssage from point A to point B , while warning you if somebody eavesdrop (at least in theory...). You could push a message in plain text through such a channel, or a KEY, both can be perfectly read by the eavesdropped, but the sender/receiver pair will know it has been caught. There is nothing encrypted whatsoever here.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Er... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-30 19:10 · Score: 0

This was done a while ago. My understanding of Quantum Physics/Cryptography is admittedly under par, but from what I understand they're able to send fake data (via photons) that confuse the person that's doing the wiretapping.
Re:quantum encryption broken by blinding detectors by ground.zero.612 · 2009-12-31 03:50 · Score: 1

Truly nothing to see here.
I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.
Hey at least 1 person got it! :D

--
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
You're nothing but a stupid fuck lgw by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-01 08:59 · Score: 0

See subject line