3 ms·

The Open Secret

60 points by b-man 17y ago

saturnine 17y ago
Interesting article, but I was left with a somewhat troubling question about British Intelligence. They developed this elegant crypto algorithm, but felt it may have a weakness which they were unable to find. Being spooks, wouldn't their next thought be, "What if our enemy develops this too and starts using it? We really need to find that weakness!" Then again, maybe it was ...
- eagleal 17y ago
  Even Williamson believed that the whole venture was too risky. When he finally wrote up a revised version of his key scheme, he cited these reservations as the reason for the two-year delay. "I find myself in an embarrassing position," he wrote. "I have come to doubt the whole theory of nonsecret encryption. The trouble is that I have no proof that the method ... is genuinely secure." He conceded he could not find anything wrong with the system, though, "and would be grateful if anyone else can." No one did. But by then the GCHQ had tacitly concluded it wasn't worth the effort to implement a public key crypto system. They tried, hard, to find weaknesses, but they couldn't, this was the problem.
wglb 17y ago
An excellent article identifying the true origin of public key cryptosystems by an unknown, with a hint to the shadowy world of spy organizations.
joeycfan 17y ago
Very British of them to do nothing with this until the Yanks re-discovered it and took all the credit.
JunkDNA 17y ago
I had forgotten about this old article. It is a truly great story. Though I have to say, nothing screams "1990's" like this line: "...public key is now ubiquitous, on every copy of Netscape and Lotus Notes - and may one day wind up in everyone's wallet as smartcards..."
carbocation 17y ago
Nick Patterson is mentioned early in this article as a mentor to Cocks (half of the Cocks-Ellis pair that originally invented what we know as RSA). Patterson now applies his mathematical prowess to investigating human genetics at the Broad Institute http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html . (Sorry to continually add biological asides to all of these discussions.)
frankus 17y ago
It still grates me a little when they talk about "factoring large primes". I realize that what they mean, "factoring the product of two large primes," is a bit long-winded, but why not just "factoring large numbers"?
s-phi-nl 17y ago
This reminds me of John Harrison's invention of the chronometer. In both cases, a modest Briton brought a solution to an "impossible problem" to the officials, who rejected it because it was too simple to be correct. (John Harrison also had the problem that one of the officials came up with a rival, astronomical solution before his was accepted.)

60 points by b-man 17y ago

Interesting article, but I was left with a somewhat troubling question about British Intelligence. They developed this elegant crypto algorithm, but felt it may have a weakness which they were unable to find. Being spooks, wouldn't their next thought be, "What if our enemy develops this too and starts using it? We really need to find that weakness!" Then again, maybe it was ...

eagleal 17y ago
Even Williamson believed that the whole venture was too risky. When he finally wrote up a revised version of his key scheme, he cited these reservations as the reason for the two-year delay. "I find myself in an embarrassing position," he wrote. "I have come to doubt the whole theory of nonsecret encryption. The trouble is that I have no proof that the method ... is genuinely secure." He conceded he could not find anything wrong with the system, though, "and would be grateful if anyone else can." No one did. But by then the GCHQ had tacitly concluded it wasn't worth the effort to implement a public key crypto system. They tried, hard, to find weaknesses, but they couldn't, this was the problem.

wglb 17y ago

An excellent article identifying the true origin of public key cryptosystems by an unknown, with a hint to the shadowy world of spy organizations.

joeycfan 17y ago

Very British of them to do nothing with this until the Yanks re-discovered it and took all the credit.

JunkDNA 17y ago

I had forgotten about this old article. It is a truly great story. Though I have to say, nothing screams "1990's" like this line: "...public key is now ubiquitous, on every copy of Netscape and Lotus Notes - and may one day wind up in everyone's wallet as smartcards..."

carbocation 17y ago

Nick Patterson is mentioned early in this article as a mentor to Cocks (half of the Cocks-Ellis pair that originally invented what we know as RSA). Patterson now applies his mathematical prowess to investigating human genetics at the Broad Institute http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html . (Sorry to continually add biological asides to all of these discussions.)

frankus 17y ago

It still grates me a little when they talk about "factoring large primes". I realize that what they mean, "factoring the product of two large primes," is a bit long-winded, but why not just "factoring large numbers"?

s-phi-nl 17y ago

This reminds me of John Harrison's invention of the chronometer. In both cases, a modest Briton brought a solution to an "impossible problem" to the officials, who rejected it because it was too simple to be correct. (John Harrison also had the problem that one of the officials came up with a rival, astronomical solution before his was accepted.)