I have a 1 bit message M, I make up a random pad K and give you the ciphertext C=0
Guess all values of K... e.g.
K=0, then M=0 K=1, then M=1
But the problem is both K=0 and K=1 are EQUALLY probable. So even if you guess my pad you can never stop and determine "this is the message".
This extends logically to the cases when K is more than a single bit. Say K is 100 bits. You might randomly happen upon the right 100 bits but you can never tell if its more right than any other 100 bits.
So mr. AC if you are going to reply try being right!
Note to author: If you are not in the know, don't write as if you are.
First off, the OTP is completely 100% unbreakable [in theory]. Even with infinite time an OTP is unbreakable.
No symmetric key system, even a really super-duper one can get that type of security. I mean sure, you could make it require 2^1000 time, but that isn't unbreakable. That is "not likely to be breakable", a strong difference.
Second, this is not the first company todo so. In fact the sci.crypt snake oil journal is full of similar companies. Any company that cites "unbreakable" and "OTP" when talking about their inhouse crypto is very suspect. Real credible companies don't play on such naive terms. RSA for example will play on the reliability of the code more than they will about the breakability of their ciphers they use [e.g. RC5/DES/AES]
Third, if it is not a OTP then its not a OTP. These "OTP-like" and "pseudo-OTP" phrases you read here and there are meaningless. Either its an OTP or it isn't. There is no half-way inbetween.
Fourth, as I read it you download a program that generates a stream? This is nothing new. What the heck do they think a stream cipher is [re: a block cipher in CTR mode is a good candidate]. What they don't say is if you make a 1000-bit pad with a stream cipher you're not supposed to think of that as a 1000-bit key for a message as in you have 1000 bits of entropy. If you use a 64-bit key to seed a cipher to make 1000-bits for a 1000-bit message than the key is still only 64-bits and you just stretched the entropy over 1000-bits.
e.g.
Entropy In >= Entropy Out
Fifth, everyone please laugh at the shameful cloakware people. Shameful! www.cloakware.com, they are an even bigger canadian joke.
Neato. When we get a "Quantum Crypto IP Backbone" that will be cool.
Of course QC is really only secure when they are direct connections. So if we want to use routers and switches to make connectivity practical we will lose the security.
This type of thing would be cool for businesses and such that want a secure connection with other branches or offices. They could do a token ring style idea where they relay from their own branches to reach a wide area.
No its called being second. If the idea was truly obvious e.g. took zero effort to come up with, then ya, but lets not mistake things
Look at RC5 [sorry I'm a crypto nut so I have to pull from what I know]. Its a trivial looking cipher and doesn't look like much design was put into it. You might think that was "an obvious design" e.g. not worthy of a patent.
Don't let simplicity be mistaken for obviousness.
In your case you might have a legitimate claim, but you have to realize that its no the spirit of the patent system to lock out obvious ideas. I'd say get others on your side of the story and see if you can invalidate the patent.
Since when did you have to patent a physical object?
And if stallman did say that he's full of it. The whole reason you'd patent an algorithm is to secure a potential return on investment. That is you invest in R&D then you expect that no one can steal your idea.
See you have probably never invented an algorithm before but breaking new grounds is always important.
Look at the RC5 block cipher or JPEG compression codec. RC5 is the product of years of research and at the time was very unique as far as ciphers go. It was a welcome addition to the field of cryptography. Then JPEG, before that sending photorealistic images meant sending 100's of KB of data at the least.
In utopia patents are never filed, but unfotunately we don't live in utopia. You have to make money to survive and that means securing your legal rights to make money off ideas or inventions you yourself researched. Actual money was spent to design RC5 so why shouldn't RSA have the right to secure it for the purpose of licensing?
I always find it ironic that people want to make money in software, but find that when others charge for it its off-beat.
Patents promote a developing market. It encourages you to get your ideas out in the open.
Just because they are abused doesn't mean they should be abolished.
Do you like eating sound with your bare hands? I mean spoons could be weapons and abused!
From what I gather the biggest flaw with patents are the clerks not the laws. They allow things with blatant prior art or generally vague claims pass through. That is not in the spirit of the Patent office and shouldn't reflect on it.
The consumers walk into a store and every damn computer has Windows on it by His Majesty Bill's Imperial Edict. Only those who are both interested in computers as computers (as opposed to what you can do with them), and who are technically skilled, really have a choice.
Again, what the heck do you expect? Those are pre-made boxed computers. No shit they come with windows.
Two flaws with your argument
1. You can always install linux overtop later.
2. If you don't want to even buy a comp with windows buy it in parts and it won't!
My computer didn't come with any OS.
Also don't mistake "inept" for don't care. I know the diff between linux and windows. I just don't care. All of my tools work in windows so I just don't care to use linux.
Its not illegal to look through someones window though.
It would be a violation of your privacy if I tapped your phone line, or entered your property [e.g. backyard].
What alot of you guys think of as private, eg. in a car, at a bar, etc.. is not at all. If you are not on your own private property by definition you are on someone elses or you are on public property.
A camera + computer is not a new concept. The fact they can recognize faces is not new. Humans have had the ability to recognize faces for a very long time.
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
"right to privacy....in an open cafe". That's funny!
Since when do you have an expectation of privacy sitting in a cafe?
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.
Well if you read my posts you'd realize I use GNU tools quite a bit in my XP command line. That includes cygwin which I use for zip/gcc and perl.
You don't have to install Linux to take advantage of OSS.
And no, the reason I don't like Linux is not because its too confusing to *use* its too confusing [e.g. not designed right] to *setup*.
Also try using half the hardware that windows supports in linux. That includes a scanner, wintv card, cdrs etc...
Anyways, my point is not really a OS war thing. Its that Dell packages windows for the sole reason that the housewifes that buy the comps really want to just plug in the computer and use it. They don't care about advancing some cult of half wit grabastic piles of amphibian shit that enjoy a command line only on a 1500$ computer.
Well when I bought my computer in 10 distinct parts I chose too.
Whatever.
If you buy a pretty combo pre-made comp from DELL don't complain when it comes with Windows.
If you really want a choice, REALLY MAKE a choice like I did.
I bought my mobo+cpu+ram+disk+case+fan+cdrom+etc... all as separate parts. I then had a choice. That's like saying Intel has a monopoly since alot of Dells are packaged with P4's. Duh, same thing.
In my case I had a choice of buying MS Windows or installing linux. Since I wanted an OS that works I got Windows. But I suppose if you wanted a crippled OS you can install Linux all you want WITHOUT buying or owning windows.
Its all about paying attention to what you order, e.g. its about being smart, obviously something you are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually again you yourself are wrong.
Say you have a 1000 bit message but only 2^64 of them are plausible english text. All of the remaining possible messages are EQUALLY probable.
Tom
E^2 is a block cipher, so the E^2-sec is just a ploy on the name of the block cipher.
FYI, E^2 was a AES submission by NTT Japan. Last I heard it had some security flaws but that doesn't discredit the argument.
Tom
Actually you are wrong.
Let me use a simple example.
I have a 1 bit message M, I make up a random pad K and give you the ciphertext C=0
Guess all values of K... e.g.
K=0, then M=0
K=1, then M=1
But the problem is both K=0 and K=1 are EQUALLY probable. So even if you guess my pad you can never stop and determine "this is the message".
This extends logically to the cases when K is more than a single bit. Say K is 100 bits. You might randomly happen upon the right 100 bits but you can never tell if its more right than any other 100 bits.
So mr. AC if you are going to reply try being right!
Tom
Note to author: If you are not in the know, don't write as if you are.
First off, the OTP is completely 100% unbreakable [in theory]. Even with infinite time an OTP is unbreakable.
No symmetric key system, even a really super-duper one can get that type of security. I mean sure, you could make it require 2^1000 time, but that isn't unbreakable. That is "not likely to be breakable", a strong difference.
Second, this is not the first company todo so. In fact the sci.crypt snake oil journal is full of similar companies. Any company that cites "unbreakable" and "OTP" when talking about their inhouse crypto is very suspect. Real credible companies don't play on such naive terms. RSA for example will play on the reliability of the code more than they will about the breakability of their ciphers they use [e.g. RC5/DES/AES]
Third, if it is not a OTP then its not a OTP. These "OTP-like" and "pseudo-OTP" phrases you read here and there are meaningless. Either its an OTP or it isn't. There is no half-way inbetween.
Fourth, as I read it you download a program that generates a stream? This is nothing new. What the heck do they think a stream cipher is [re: a block cipher in CTR mode is a good candidate]. What they don't say is if you make a 1000-bit pad with a stream cipher you're not supposed to think of that as a 1000-bit key for a message as in you have 1000 bits of entropy. If you use a 64-bit key to seed a cipher to make 1000-bits for a 1000-bit message than the key is still only 64-bits and you just stretched the entropy over 1000-bits.
e.g.
Entropy In >= Entropy Out
Fifth, everyone please laugh at the shameful cloakware people. Shameful! www.cloakware.com, they are an even bigger canadian joke.
Tom
Yeah but QC mandates that this is point-to-point connections. You cannot use repeaters, routers or switches.
So the type of networking fiber that telco's do and the type that QC requires are not compatible.
[well the cables are the same, I meant the way they are laid out and used]
Tom
Quantum Crypto is based on the transmission of photons or somesuch.
The jist is if I send from
A =====> B
and someone traps the bits in the middle
A ===/C/===> B
e.g. an eavesdropper than they will change the spin of the photons and B will know [and in turn A].
So with quantum crypto you can send from A to B without any real crypto and you will be assured that an eavesdropper cannot get the message.
The big problem is this all requires direct connections.
Tom
Neato. When we get a "Quantum Crypto IP Backbone" that will be cool.
Of course QC is really only secure when they are direct connections. So if we want to use routers and switches to make connectivity practical we will lose the security.
This type of thing would be cool for businesses and such that want a secure connection with other branches or offices. They could do a token ring style idea where they relay from their own branches to reach a wide area.
Tom
No its called being second. If the idea was truly obvious e.g. took zero effort to come up with, then ya, but lets not mistake things
Look at RC5 [sorry I'm a crypto nut so I have to pull from what I know]. Its a trivial looking cipher and doesn't look like much design was put into it. You might think that was "an obvious design" e.g. not worthy of a patent.
Don't let simplicity be mistaken for obviousness.
In your case you might have a legitimate claim, but you have to realize that its no the spirit of the patent system to lock out obvious ideas. I'd say get others on your side of the story and see if you can invalidate the patent.
Tom
Since when did you have to patent a physical object?
And if stallman did say that he's full of it. The whole reason you'd patent an algorithm is to secure a potential return on investment. That is you invest in R&D then you expect that no one can steal your idea.
Actually yes you can.
See you have probably never invented an algorithm before but breaking new grounds is always important.
Look at the RC5 block cipher or JPEG compression codec. RC5 is the product of years of research and at the time was very unique as far as ciphers go. It was a welcome addition to the field of cryptography. Then JPEG, before that sending photorealistic images meant sending 100's of KB of data at the least.
In utopia patents are never filed, but unfotunately we don't live in utopia. You have to make money to survive and that means securing your legal rights to make money off ideas or inventions you yourself researched. Actual money was spent to design RC5 so why shouldn't RSA have the right to secure it for the purpose of licensing?
I always find it ironic that people want to make money in software, but find that when others charge for it its off-beat.
Tom
arrg..
"eating soup"....My mind was elsewhere... [stupid CNN]
Patents promote a developing market. It encourages you to get your ideas out in the open.
Just because they are abused doesn't mean they should be abolished.
Do you like eating sound with your bare hands? I mean spoons could be weapons and abused!
From what I gather the biggest flaw with patents are the clerks not the laws. They allow things with blatant prior art or generally vague claims pass through. That is not in the spirit of the Patent office and shouldn't reflect on it.
Tom
The consumers walk into a store and every damn computer has Windows on it by His Majesty Bill's Imperial Edict. Only those who are both interested in computers as computers (as opposed to what you can do with them), and who are technically skilled, really have a choice.
Again, what the heck do you expect? Those are pre-made boxed computers. No shit they come with windows.
Two flaws with your argument
1. You can always install linux overtop later.
2. If you don't want to even buy a comp with windows buy it in parts and it won't!
My computer didn't come with any OS.
Also don't mistake "inept" for don't care. I know the diff between linux and windows. I just don't care. All of my tools work in windows so I just don't care to use linux.
Tom
If you own the cafe and you closed it to customers, I could see your desire for privacy.
But if you are a visitor in a publicly opened cafe you are as public as can be.
After all, what if I sit at the table next to you. Must I zone out everything you talk about?
If you want privacy go somewhere private!
Tom
Why is that funny ? I guess it depends on how you define privacy.
Plain sight... nuff said.
Tom
why is it a problem?
Its not illegal to look through someones window though.
It would be a violation of your privacy if I tapped your phone line, or entered your property [e.g. backyard].
What alot of you guys think of as private, eg. in a car, at a bar, etc.. is not at all. If you are not on your own private property by definition you are on someone elses or you are on public property.
Tom
Why would you say that?
A camera + computer is not a new concept. The fact they can recognize faces is not new. Humans have had the ability to recognize faces for a very long time.
Tom
What the heck? This is an insane idea, its just giving away everybody's right to privacy, if you're in a cafe reading a book and there's a cellphone with this technology.. you just lost your right to privacy when the info is transmitted..
"right to privacy....in an open cafe". That's funny!
Since when do you have an expectation of privacy sitting in a cafe?
You give privacy advocates a bad name.
Tom
Pharmaplus [in Canada] uses linux for their accouting systems, Win98 for their main cashes and WinNT4 for their postal outlet terminals.
Beat that.
Tom
People are stupid.
It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
True, these people are also linux developers.
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.
Tom
Isn't there a point [after age 12] when playing RPG's is just a bit sappy?
Saying things like "my Elvin clan will get midevil on your black mage dwarfs" is just a bit socially inept when you are of the age to vote.
Tom
The complaint is that Dell computers typically come with windows.
My post was to justify that most people who buy household Dells will want Windows.
Tom
Well if you read my posts you'd realize I use GNU tools quite a bit in my XP command line. That includes cygwin which I use for zip/gcc and perl.
You don't have to install Linux to take advantage of OSS.
And no, the reason I don't like Linux is not because its too confusing to *use* its too confusing [e.g. not designed right] to *setup*.
Also try using half the hardware that windows supports in linux. That includes a scanner, wintv card, cdrs etc...
Anyways, my point is not really a OS war thing. Its that Dell packages windows for the sole reason that the housewifes that buy the comps really want to just plug in the computer and use it. They don't care about advancing some cult of half wit grabastic piles of amphibian shit that enjoy a command line only on a 1500$ computer.
Tom
Well when I bought my computer in 10 distinct parts I chose too.
Whatever.
If you buy a pretty combo pre-made comp from DELL don't complain when it comes with Windows.
If you really want a choice, REALLY MAKE a choice like I did.
I bought my mobo+cpu+ram+disk+case+fan+cdrom+etc... all as separate parts. I then had a choice. That's like saying Intel has a monopoly since alot of Dells are packaged with P4's. Duh, same thing.
In my case I had a choice of buying MS Windows or installing linux. Since I wanted an OS that works I got Windows. But I suppose if you wanted a crippled OS you can install Linux all you want WITHOUT buying or owning windows.
Its all about paying attention to what you order, e.g. its about being smart, obviously something you are not.
Tom