Religion = "the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:" (from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=667 31&dict=CALD )
I would say the catch comes in the "any such system" part of that, as there are actually religions that don't believe in a god.
But you can't proove his beliefs are wrong. He can't proove yours are either. So I don't see how either of your views are more or less stupid then the others.
Your overreacting. They may be irrelevent, and you may have taken them as preaching, the good news part may even be preaching in a very wide sense. But that doesn't at all diffuse his point that he is still a rational person.
Why? Encrypt it, and let the receiver decrypt ahead until a string, that matches the position of the key that decyphered it.
Please explain that further, cause at the moment it makes no sense. If your going to tell people when in the pad to start you can't encrypt that information cause they need it to start decrypting.
Methods with static keys are not hurt by decrypting false messages, the annoyence is equivalent to cleaning spam out of your mailbox. But in a one time pad where sync between the sender and reciever is important false messages can be much more disruptive.
Nobody is ever completely objective. You simply can't escape yourself- senses and perceptions and feelings are what makes a person human. So while some may strive to be objective their personal opinions are going to seep in to any assesment they make. It's inescapable.
Correct. But if you strive to be objective you can minimize that. A person who has studied music is going to have an easyer time being as objective as possible.
IMHO, the reason why one time pads aro so rarely used (even with today's storage devices) is that it just seems an overkill
I completely disagree, that is flat wrong. Overkill is one of the fundamentals of cryptography. Knowone would logically choose to use a less secure cipher unless the abselutely secure version had drawbacks. I wouldn't call them rare, but I believe the reasons one time pads aren't used almost exclusively lie in the ciphers shortcomings.
A message could tell at which position it's key begins.
The problem is that protion of the message would have to remain unencrypted. At which time whoever is trying to listen in can instead choose to disrupt. Just send a couple bs messages, it would be easy to come up with an excuse why the resultant plaintext was garbage. Then when they destroy that portion of the key, it's gone and they can't decrypt the real message.
If it's text communication (which is sufficient for most purpouses) a few GBs can go a long way
It may be sufficient for your purposes. But images, audio data, computer information, all these things need often need to be sent in addition to text. A few GB can quickly disapear.
What I'm saying is that alot of cryptosystems rely on very basic math concepts, in fact very old math concepts. If there is no known way to perform a certain operation quickly even though mathmatitions have been searching for centuries, it's fairly safe to assume that there just isn't a shortcut. Granted that's only an assumption and not a fact. I do agree with you that the NSA can probably crack most encryptions. But I think that has more to do with massive amounts of computing power and streamlined brute force attacks then secret proofs.
Yes but we're not talking about submarine commanders sending ULF, we're talking about the internet. Anyway, read this responce, which was meant to be attached to you post but as I'm doing like three things at once here... well.. oops:)
I am familiar with one time pads, I misunderstood what you were saying about CD's. For some reason I read it as you would be transmiting the pad along with the encrypted information on the same CD. But now I understand what you were saying.
Your confusing efficient with effective. Yes one time pads offer the most security that any one encryption technique can provide; which is why the military uses it for some types of communication. The problem is that once you've transmitted the size of your pad worth of data your screwed. It has an upper limit on it which is why it's not preferred for constant long distance communication. You could increase the pad size but it's not good to rely on one pad for too much data because if you were to miss a message (which is incredibly probable given that we're talking about the internet here) you would loose the sync between your pad and theirs.
I don't think they have space man science either, but I don't agree that that's what it would take to crack a reasonable key length. The amount of computing power that is available to the NSA and to the NSA alone (due to it's cost) is immense. Add that with techniques that make brute force attacks more efficient and I don't think it's that unreasonable to assume that if the NSA has it's heart set on breaking your encryption it can do it.
There are plenty of techniques that streamline the time needed to perform a brute force attack,. It's not unreasonable to think that the NSA knows something that we don't. It is their job after all. Combine that with a budget capable of purchasing more computing power then any civilian company could afford.
Well... one time pads aren't a very efficient encryption technique. They are good for short mission times with reliable equipment, but for sending longwinded communications especially over a network as unreliable as the internet, they are too risky.
I'm not sure exactly if what your saying about CD's is correct, do you have an article link I could read maybe?? I just know it doesn't sound sensical. If you distribute the pad with the CD then there's no point in encrypting it in the first place.
In short, there's every reason to believe that your favorite three-letter agency will capture the input before encryption or after decryption, due to a flawed implementation, unsecure handshake or through a man-in-the-middle attack than breaking the encryption/algorithm itself.
Very true, I'm sure every emphasis is put on trying to get the information before it is encrypted. But given that they have no other alternative there's also every reason to believe that the NSA knows exactly what kind of resources it needs to apply to break a code. Brute force attacks can be streamlined.
A shit load of people know how DES works. There have been masses of books published as well as articles on varients people have developed that enhance certain features of the original ect.
No, actually the methods for cracking most popular cryptosystems are widely known. It has been proven that those methods take x amount of time given a y keylength. You then choose your keylength to ensure that by the time you message has been decoded the messages relevence has long since passed.
Quantum technology has already made it's way into cryptology. I read an article about a security firm working on sending data in such a way that the laws of quantum theory apply, i.e. if you observe something you change it's state making it theoretically impossible to evesdrop without being noticed. That's a small step to be sure, but if the technology is already being applied to the field it's common sense that the NSA is already looking into it.
Brute force attacks can be streamlined with analysis of partial solutions, statistically enforced key searches. The math behind cryptology is seldom cut and dry.
Slashdot Mirror
In all fairness, there's signifigantly more empirical evidence of god then there is of the tooth fairy.
Your parents don't represent the whole of christianity.
I would say the catch comes in the "any such system" part of that, as there are actually religions that don't believe in a god.
ps. So why is summer hotter then? (Seriosly...)
I don't believe in god either. But lets be fair, there's quite a bit more evidence of god then there is of santa clause.
But you can't proove his beliefs are wrong. He can't proove yours are either. So I don't see how either of your views are more or less stupid then the others.
Your overreacting. They may be irrelevent, and you may have taken them as preaching, the good news part may even be preaching in a very wide sense. But that doesn't at all diffuse his point that he is still a rational person.
Good thing it didn't happen in america..... we'd start burning witches....
Haha.... as everyone just ignores the glaringly obvious...
Please explain that further, cause at the moment it makes no sense. If your going to tell people when in the pad to start you can't encrypt that information cause they need it to start decrypting.
Methods with static keys are not hurt by decrypting false messages, the annoyence is equivalent to cleaning spam out of your mailbox. But in a one time pad where sync between the sender and reciever is important false messages can be much more disruptive.
Nobody is ever completely objective. You simply can't escape yourself- senses and perceptions and feelings are what makes a person human. So while some may strive to be objective their personal opinions are going to seep in to any assesment they make. It's inescapable. Correct. But if you strive to be objective you can minimize that. A person who has studied music is going to have an easyer time being as objective as possible.
I completely disagree, that is flat wrong. Overkill is one of the fundamentals of cryptography. Knowone would logically choose to use a less secure cipher unless the abselutely secure version had drawbacks. I wouldn't call them rare, but I believe the reasons one time pads aren't used almost exclusively lie in the ciphers shortcomings.
A message could tell at which position it's key begins.
The problem is that protion of the message would have to remain unencrypted. At which time whoever is trying to listen in can instead choose to disrupt. Just send a couple bs messages, it would be easy to come up with an excuse why the resultant plaintext was garbage. Then when they destroy that portion of the key, it's gone and they can't decrypt the real message.
If it's text communication (which is sufficient for most purpouses) a few GBs can go a long way
It may be sufficient for your purposes. But images, audio data, computer information, all these things need often need to be sent in addition to text. A few GB can quickly disapear.
What I'm saying is that alot of cryptosystems rely on very basic math concepts, in fact very old math concepts. If there is no known way to perform a certain operation quickly even though mathmatitions have been searching for centuries, it's fairly safe to assume that there just isn't a shortcut. Granted that's only an assumption and not a fact. I do agree with you that the NSA can probably crack most encryptions. But I think that has more to do with massive amounts of computing power and streamlined brute force attacks then secret proofs.
I'm much more fascinated with RSA though.....
The first half of that responce (about the cd's) was intended as a reply to a diffrent post, sorry.
Yes but we're not talking about submarine commanders sending ULF, we're talking about the internet. Anyway, read this responce, which was meant to be attached to you post but as I'm doing like three things at once here... well.. oops :)
I am familiar with one time pads, I misunderstood what you were saying about CD's. For some reason I read it as you would be transmiting the pad along with the encrypted information on the same CD. But now I understand what you were saying. Your confusing efficient with effective. Yes one time pads offer the most security that any one encryption technique can provide; which is why the military uses it for some types of communication. The problem is that once you've transmitted the size of your pad worth of data your screwed. It has an upper limit on it which is why it's not preferred for constant long distance communication. You could increase the pad size but it's not good to rely on one pad for too much data because if you were to miss a message (which is incredibly probable given that we're talking about the internet here) you would loose the sync between your pad and theirs.
I don't think they have space man science either, but I don't agree that that's what it would take to crack a reasonable key length. The amount of computing power that is available to the NSA and to the NSA alone (due to it's cost) is immense. Add that with techniques that make brute force attacks more efficient and I don't think it's that unreasonable to assume that if the NSA has it's heart set on breaking your encryption it can do it.
There are plenty of techniques that streamline the time needed to perform a brute force attack,. It's not unreasonable to think that the NSA knows something that we don't. It is their job after all. Combine that with a budget capable of purchasing more computing power then any civilian company could afford.
I'm not sure exactly if what your saying about CD's is correct, do you have an article link I could read maybe?? I just know it doesn't sound sensical. If you distribute the pad with the CD then there's no point in encrypting it in the first place.
Very true, I'm sure every emphasis is put on trying to get the information before it is encrypted. But given that they have no other alternative there's also every reason to believe that the NSA knows exactly what kind of resources it needs to apply to break a code. Brute force attacks can be streamlined.
A shit load of people know how DES works. There have been masses of books published as well as articles on varients people have developed that enhance certain features of the original ect.
No, actually the methods for cracking most popular cryptosystems are widely known. It has been proven that those methods take x amount of time given a y keylength. You then choose your keylength to ensure that by the time you message has been decoded the messages relevence has long since passed.
Quantum technology has already made it's way into cryptology. I read an article about a security firm working on sending data in such a way that the laws of quantum theory apply, i.e. if you observe something you change it's state making it theoretically impossible to evesdrop without being noticed. That's a small step to be sure, but if the technology is already being applied to the field it's common sense that the NSA is already looking into it.
Brute force attacks can be streamlined with analysis of partial solutions, statistically enforced key searches. The math behind cryptology is seldom cut and dry.