5 ms·
I think OP's concern was more around that it's likely easy to break any encryption that was used in the 1970s so someone could send the spacecraft malicious com
by tempay 3y ago
I think OP's concern was more around that it's likely easy to break any encryption that was used in the 1970s so someone could send the spacecraft malicious commands.
That said, only America, China, Europe, India, Japan and Russia have deep space networks and none of them have anything to gain from investing the resources into trying to harm Voyager. Even with weak encryption it's likely difficult to collect enough samples to be able to break it and even once it's broken you still need to figure out a valid set of commands to send to achive your goal.
- wolverine876 3y ago> it's likely easy to break any encryption that was used in the 1970s I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Some things encrypted now are intended to be secure for 50 years.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWe have much better chances of designing a cryptography system today that can survive 50 years of math, and with computers a billion times faster we can make the encryption O((1.something)^billion) times harder to brute force. Nothing in the 70s was capable of resisting today's attacks. You mention a one-time pad in another comment. In theory they could have sacrificed a bunch of tape space to store a pad for commands.
- pxx 3y agoEncryption in the 70s resists today's attacks just fine. DES was weakened on purpose (short key length, but the idea for 3DES dates from 1978). In the asymmetric realm you still can't break a full length RSA key. Maybe it's not fully contemporaneous with Voyager but the claim that 70s encryption is insufficient doesn't stand up to scrutiny
- amenhotep 3y agoIt's not the full length RSA key that's the worry, though, it's the structure around it that Bleichenbacher finds clever ways of poking holes in. I don't think Voyager would be very vulnerable to an adaptive chosen ciphertext attack regardless. But you don't need the 70s maths to be wrong, you only need the engineering to have a flaw.
- wolverine876 3y agoIs today's engineering different? One could argue that we have 50 years more of experience with the engineering (though the components have changed too, requiring newish engineering), and I would guess that we invest more resources in such things these days.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat was "full length" at the time, even if they got RSA implemented immediately after the paper was announced? The RSA paper recommends 200 digit keys, which is somewhat under 700 bits. Would even that size run acceptably on an 8 kiloword 0.1MIPS machine? (I couldn't quickly find an actual opcode listing, so I can't say exactly how fast it multiplies, but it's probably not great.)
- eru 2y agoWhy would you use public key encryption here in the first place? Just use a symmetric cipher.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhat's a symmetric cipher from the 70s that we can't brute force today? (And I'm not counting "the idea" of 3DES when even that was after voyager already launched and it wasn't properly set up until 1981. Also 3DES has enough weaknesses that I wouldn't trust it to be uncrackable today.)