It is called the Vernam cipher or one-time pad. The worth of all other ciphers is based on computational security. If a cipher is computationally secure this means the probability of cracking the encryption key using current computational technology and algorithms within a reasonable time is supposedly extremely small, yet not impossible.
In theory, every cryptographic algorithm except for the Vernam cipher can be broken given enough ciphertext and time. Calculate an integer N such that it has only two prime number factors f1 and f2. This triad of integers forms the basis of the encryption and decryption keys used in PK cryptosystems.
The security of these systems is simply based on the computational difficulty of calculating f2 and f1 from N if N is a very large integer. To break this cipher N must be factored, and at the time these systems were devised the best publicly available factoring algorithms would take millions of years to factor a digit number.
This does not logically exclude the possibility of a new factoring algorithm being discovered, or the existence of a secret factoring algorithm, or the invention of technology capable of running current factoring algorithms at high speed. Please also click here to view RFC - "Randomness recommendations for security". Computationally secure cryptosystems? The use of public key cryptosystems has become commonplace, yet should their widespread presence in itself lead to an unquestioning trust of the security of data encrypted using these methods?
How do you know the cryptosystem you use is actually safe? Do you understand how it works? Do you think if a Government or military intelligence institution had a method of breaking cryptosystems they would announce this fact? Though the security of cryptosystems should be a matter of importance to anyone with a healthy mistrust of those drawn to positions of power it is of particular relevance to those activists and dissidents operating within a society ruled by oppressive governments, dictators or power elites.
The interception and decryption of personal communications can literally be a matter of life or death to these individuals. As a result of work on a new form of computational technology known as the quantum computer a factorisation algorithm now exists to factor giant integers in linear time. A quantum factorisation engine running Shor's algorithm could factor a one hundred digit integer in few thousand arithmetic operations, which might well take only a matter of minutes.
Anyone with access to such a machine would easily be able to read any intercepted message encrypted using a pubic key cryptosystem. Prototype quantum computers are already operational see the Scientific American article on the NMR quantum computer and this introduction to quantum computing.
This article contains information on a hardware implementation of a scalable matrix inversion on time area optimised SMITH cryptanalysis device. Follow this link for the paper " Randomness and the Netscape Browser " by Ian Goldberg and David Wagner describing their attack on the security of this browser. This is because computers keep getting faster, allowing us to squeeze the same number of CPU clock cycles into a shorter period of time. Ever-more complex and clever algorithms are designed to provide ever greater resistance to brute force cryptanalysis, and to replace older algorithms that have been broken or otherwise become obsolete.
It is always an arms race -- privacy against the attempt to penetrate that privacy. Amongst all the wreckage of the broken and rusty ciphers that have fallen by the wayside through history, one cipher has endured for the last 93 years.
It is called the one-time pad. In , Gilbert Vernam developed a cipher known as the Vernam Cipher, which used teletype technology with a paper tape key to encrypt and decrypt data. The result was a symmetric cipher that was quite strong for its time. Army Captain Joseph Mauborgne realized that by using truly random keys, where no part of the key was repeated except perhaps at random , the Vernam cipher could be made much stronger.
From the idea of using paper tape keys, a pad of paper with rows of random letters or numbers on each page as the means of recording keys was developed.
Two copies of the same pad could be given to two people, and by using each character on each page only once and destroying each page as its last character is used to encrypt or decrypt a message , they could pass encrypted messages between them without fear of an intercepted message ever being decrypted without the help of the key.
Because of the technique of distributing key stream data on pads of paper, this cipher became known as the one-time pad. Security is top of mind for anyone in IT these days. While there are plenty of technologies you can buy to secure your data, encryption is one aspect of security technology that every computer user should understand. Encryption is a way for data—messages or files—to be made unreadable, ensuring that only an authorized person can access that data.
Encryption uses complex algorithms to scramble data and decrypts the same data using a key provided by the message sender. Any unauthorized access to the data will only see a chaotic array of bytes.
Also known as a cipher, algorithms are the rules or instructions for the encryption process. The key length, functionality, and features of the encryption system in use determine the effectiveness of the encryption. An encryption key is a randomized string of bits used to encrypt and decrypt data. Each key is unique, and longer keys are harder to break. Typical key lengths are and bits for private keys and for public keys.
In a symmetric key system, everyone accessing the data has the same key. Keys that encrypt and decrypt messages must also remain secret to ensure privacy. One key remains secret—the private key—while the other key is made widely available to anyone who needs it. The second law of thermodynamics prevents this attack.
Every time Alice and Bob change the chip with an irreversible process, they increase the total entropy of the system and the environment, creating new chaotic structures exponentially different from the ones used in the communication conditions 3 and 4.
If Eve accesses the system, it is impossible to recreate the initial chips and to perform any search, as this requires reverting the transformation of Alice and Bob with an entropy decrease, thus violating the second law. This is contrary to my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Can't you easily decrease entropy in systems that aren't closed such as the chips , just by increasing it more outside the system exhaust heat somewhere? So is this new cryptosystem legit, or is it just more snake oil?
If it's legit, then what are the explanations for my above concerns? If it's snake oil, how did it manage to dupe both Nature Communications and Forbes? I will go out on a limb here and say that it reeks of snake oil. I have seen the answer by dirdi, but I am very skeptical. It is clear from the paper that the authors have almost no understanding of cryptography: they refer to algorithms used as DES, AES and RSA, and that quantum computers break them all.
We know that quantum computers only have quadratic speedup to break symmetric ciphers, to the best of everyone's knowledge. There is no theoretical model for this, like one has for quantum computation with all of the problems that exist there. Rather, it is more experimental in nature - and we know where that tends to end. Bottom line, this looks really bad and like a lot of other cases where people from other fields think that they can solve all of the world's hard cryptographic problems without knowing anything about cryptography.
The technology is not based on an algorithm or the like, but leverages physical properties i. Since laws of nature cannot be "broken" the claim seems to be legit. However, there is the possibility of advances in physics that may open attack vectors.
Note that laws of nature cannot be proven, but only be falsified. The messages are only encrypted during transmission. They are decrypted upon arrival at the communication partner. The technology described in the paper is not determined to encrypt stored data.
The biggest problem with this technology seems to be authentication. As far as I can see, there needs to be an authentication phase that has not been described in detail, as well as an authenticated public channel.
So a man-in-the-middle attack seems feasible to me. However, somebody may prove me wrong?! The two communication parties need to have a direct fiber cable connection. So it could be used to secure the connections in backbone networks or e.
But if you want to use this to communicate with a friend who lives at the other side of town, the answer is no. I stopped at the point that things were described as "exponentially different" - an expression that seems a perfect if minor example of language thats designed for hype not meaning.
If they are tackling a complex technical problem, but can't describe the findings rigorously, then my confidence in their broader rigour is minimal. Nature Communications provides the comments from the reviewers as well as the response from the authors. The first reviewer was quite critical, but the other two were very positive, and after the authors responded to the first reviewer, it seems that they signed off on the manuscript.
If you are really interested in the veracity of the papers claims, it is worth reading: PDF of reviewer comments and authors response. After reading the paper it seems legit. Although I am a mathematician and cryptography isn't something I am very intimate with, so I cannot be sure. They use the Vernam cipher which is completely unbreakable and completely useless. At least in general. Why unbreakable? Because it uses a random cypher that is the size of the message sent.
And the cypher changes randomly for each message. Provided that you can send the cypher securely to the recipient, the message is undecypherable by itself. Why useless? Well if you can send the cypher to the recipient securely, why don't you send the whole message on the same channel then?
It is the same size. In practice sending the cypher is as hard as sending the original message. So they use Vernam cipher and their contribution is in communicating the cypher to both ends securely.
Each end of the network the call them Alice and Bob has an image scanner that they put their thumb on and then use the image to produce random messages that are then sent over the fiber to the other end. The cypher is some combination of both images that they construct at each end.
In the quantum limit, when a user say Bob launches a single photon in the chip, the receiver Alice measures a photon emerging at a random position from the chip.
0コメント