5 ms·

Sorry but "unbreakable crypto" is the only right crypto.

• Udik 11y ago
  Of course. And 11000 meters waterproof is the only waterproof acceptable for a watch. And operating room clean air is the only clean air. And obsidian blades are the only ones that deserve to be used in your kitchen. And triple malt, 60 years aged whiskey is the only whiskey. Etc.
  • parenthephobia 11y ago
    The reason not everyone has the best watches, air conditioning, knives, or whiskey is that, for physical products, quality tends to cost more. There is no reasonable argument to be made that people shouldn't have higher quality products when they _don't_ cost more^. Apple only have to develop "unbreakable" encryption once and then it costs them no more to make it available in every iPhone than to only make it available in some of them. Indeed, it'd be cheaper than maintaining both breakable and "unbreakable" variants. There are arguments to be made about the secure enclave hardware, since it presumably costs more to make it more tamperproof. However, securing iPhones against this particular "attack" appears to be a software issue: iOS should never apply updates without an authenticated user approving them first. ^ For the avoidance of doubt, this includes externalized costs.
  • Dylan16807 11y ago
    >11000 meters waterproof is the only waterproof acceptable for a watch It depends, how many meters does it have to claim before I can make sudden movements and god forbid press the buttons underwater?
  • mkhalil 11y ago
    That argument doesn't hold water. If you're using a breakable crypto , you're not protected at any given time. If you're using a watch that's waterproof up to 100m, you're safe up to 100 meters.
    • paublyrne 11y ago
      If you're using a watch that's waterproof up to 100m, you're safe up to 100 meters. To be pedantic, that's not exactly what is meant by 100m Water Resistant, but your point is valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
    • Udik 11y ago
      I'm sorry, I might be wrong here, but I thought that any cryptographic system is breakable, given enough time and resources. If this is true, then, according to your statement, you're never protected. Therefore you can just transmit and store plain data without any cryptography, isn't it the same?
      • whorleater 11y ago
        There's an idea used in crypto commonly called "reasonable security". Anything is possible given an computationally unbounded adversary, but the point of strong crypto is to make it such that cracking the crypto takes an "unfeasible amount" of time. Crypto isn't some spectrum like waterproofing is, it's binary: either broken or it's "will be broken".
        • Udik 11y ago
          Please see the reply to your comment's sibling, they say substantially the same thing.
      • parenthephobia 11y ago
        Any watch can be breached by water, given enough time and pressure. Most watches would not survive very long at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Similarly, most watches would not survive a few centuries in a shallow pool, even if rated for much deeper immersion. Although no watch can be absolutely waterproof, not even at a given depth, there are levels of risk one can accept. A watch you can use at 100m for several hours a day is effectively waterproof if that's the harshest treatment the watch will receive. Similarly, although no cryptographic system is absolutely unbreakable^, there are levels of risk one can accept. And, unlike with watches, we can design cryptographic systems which, except in the face of unforeseen mathematical breakthroughs, or bugs (or backdoors) in their implementation, cannot be broken in the next few hundred years even by a nation state-level attacker. I think is it reasonable to describe a cryptographic system that can't be broken within the lifetime of anyone alive today as "unbreakable". ^ Except maybe one-time-pads, depending upon how "unbreakable" is defined.