4 ms·

Being that crypto is 'just math', why would crypto be safe? The only claim that crypto is safe assumes computational power is limited. Is that a safe assumption

Being that crypto is 'just math', why would crypto be safe? The only claim that crypto is safe assumes computational power is limited. Is that a safe assumption? Assuming the crypto math is safe, one also has to be certain the entire system which runs the crypto is safe as well. Analysis and attempts to decode the Voynich manuscript lead me to believe mathematical patterns intended to hide information, languages in particular, are not safe in the least.

ianremsen 11y ago
That assumption is correct, founded deep within the well-tested parts of our current understanding of physics. When the work required to brute-force a cipher in a sane timeframe doesn't exist (or even couldn't fit) within the bounds of the observable universe, (if the crypto works as intended, which, to be fair, is a big if) brute-forcing is safely axed as an avenue of attack. Of course, on these scales, if you really want to, you could connive and threaten your way into having a backdoor installed. Or you could spy on the victim and steal their laptop, with the key decrypted and in memory. Or you could beat the key and password out of them. Brute-forcing shouldn't be the most pressing of anyone's cryptographic worries.
cordite 11y ago
Math works when all of the lemmas are satisfied. In this case, for he sake of efficiency or otherwise, a lot of people made a bad decision and only fulfilled a partial set of the requirements. When software uses a known set of hard coded primes, it is logarithmically simplified in what it takes to defeat it. Maybe there are good primes, bad primes, but to "standardize" a prime is to give an anchor to an adversary.
crpatino 11y ago
If you have any means of "unlimited computational power", why haven't you already taken over the world through financial speculation. The trade floors are already opening in Asia, I think. You have got 24 hours. Go!!!

ianremsen 11y ago

That assumption is correct, founded deep within the well-tested parts of our current understanding of physics. When the work required to brute-force a cipher in a sane timeframe doesn't exist (or even couldn't fit) within the bounds of the observable universe, (if the crypto works as intended, which, to be fair, is a big if) brute-forcing is safely axed as an avenue of attack. Of course, on these scales, if you really want to, you could connive and threaten your way into having a backdoor installed. Or you could spy on the victim and steal their laptop, with the key decrypted and in memory. Or you could beat the key and password out of them. Brute-forcing shouldn't be the most pressing of anyone's cryptographic worries.

cordite 11y ago

Math works when all of the lemmas are satisfied. In this case, for he sake of efficiency or otherwise, a lot of people made a bad decision and only fulfilled a partial set of the requirements. When software uses a known set of hard coded primes, it is logarithmically simplified in what it takes to defeat it. Maybe there are good primes, bad primes, but to "standardize" a prime is to give an anchor to an adversary.

crpatino 11y ago

If you have any means of "unlimited computational power", why haven't you already taken over the world through financial speculation. The trade floors are already opening in Asia, I think. You have got 24 hours. Go!!!