I don't see how it would be possible to have a single key that allows one to decrypt any file encrypted under a given algorithm. If the data is directly employing the user-generated key then having one static key (the backdoor) that also encrypts the data would not be feasable. This would mean that all data encrypted under a given algorithm would be encrypted with the same static key. I believe this would cause to many similarities in the resulting ciphertexts. Thus allowing the plaintext to be easily compromised.
Also if the same static key is used to encrypt data under any given algorithm that would imply that the key would be hardcoded into the software encrypting the plaintext. This would be foolish as anyone willing to reverse engineer the software could obtain the static key.
Lastly, once that static key has been compromised the algorithm would be rendered useless (assuming the cracker disclosed the details). This would mean money spent in research and developement could be blown by one bored 14 year old russian. : P After this, why would anyone even bother creating new algorithms (commercially in the US)?
I don't know, perhaps it would be implemented differently then I imagine. However, the only other scheme I could picture would be some sort of key escrow system. That would just be rideculous - as no terrorist (espicially if outside the US) would ever register his/her key with the designated party.
Let's not forget that the presence of liquid water is VERY important to life as we know it. Not too many organisms can survive in low water conditions.
Yeah, that's just it - Life as we know it. It doesn't mean that all life must come about as we know it. Perhaps life on other planets is based on nothing aquatic. Perhaps it's not even made of matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Time to get flamed.
Well, under Islam one is considered an adult at the age of 13. When reading news in coming weeks try to keep cultural differences in mind.
How long before you have to employ your fingerprint to register software? : /
Perhaps after outlawing cryptography they should outlaw planes. Then maybe will the ignorant feel the analogy.
I don't see how it would be possible to have a single key that allows one to decrypt any file encrypted under a given algorithm. If the data is directly employing the user-generated key then having one static key (the backdoor) that also encrypts the data would not be feasable. This would mean that all data encrypted under a given algorithm would be encrypted with the same static key. I believe this would cause to many similarities in the resulting ciphertexts. Thus allowing the plaintext to be easily compromised.
Also if the same static key is used to encrypt data under any given algorithm that would imply that the key would be hardcoded into the software encrypting the plaintext. This would be foolish as anyone willing to reverse engineer the software could obtain the static key.
Lastly, once that static key has been compromised the algorithm would be rendered useless (assuming the cracker disclosed the details). This would mean money spent in research and developement could be blown by one bored 14 year old russian. : P After this, why would anyone even bother creating new algorithms (commercially in the US)?
I don't know, perhaps it would be implemented differently then I imagine. However, the only other scheme I could picture would be some sort of key escrow system. That would just be rideculous - as no terrorist (espicially if outside the US) would ever register his/her key with the designated party.
</rant>
Let's not forget that the presence of liquid water is VERY important to life as we know it. Not too many organisms can survive in low water conditions.
Yeah, that's just it - Life as we know it. It doesn't mean that all life must come about as we know it. Perhaps life on other planets is based on nothing aquatic. Perhaps it's not even made of matter.
I wonder how they've improved KNotes, I employ that more than anything. : P