4 ms·

So it's unreliable, doesn't have a backing theory demonstrating why it should be considered secure ("we can't figure out how to crack it, so it's uncrackable"),

• lexicality 2y ago
  It has AI in the title!
  • ashoeafoot 2y ago
    Take my money, good sir and all the hopes of the oligarchs rest upon you stabilize and keeping going a society running out. PS: If you dont return, at las return the wheelbarrow, do not worry much then its only paper.
• j2kun 2y ago
  > "we can't figure out how to crack it" To be fair, this is the theory that all security guarantees boil down to (excluding the "so it's uncrackable" part)
  • beardedwizard 2y ago
    I would argue this extends to all systems and behaviors that aren't formally verified. Bugs notwithstanding, breaking current encryption is a mathematically backed concept. The issue is broken implementations.
  • GTP 2y ago
    But in cryptography, you have a security claim that is based on the hardness of a well known mathematical probelm. So you know that breaking a certain scheme is as hard as solving that problem. If someone finds out how to solve such a problem efficiently the scheme is broken, but as long as no one has a solution the scheme is safe. Here it is not clear to me what is the hard problem that makes this scheme secure. Yes, you have light scattering in a random way, but they also showed that it is possible to train a neural network to get the data back. Why can't an attacker do the same?
  • bawolff 2y ago
    There is a difference between - some random dude who invented the scheme can't figure out how to crack it - and - the entire mathematical world has been trying to figure it out for the last 2200 years (since Eratosthenes) and still haven't.
• GTP 2y ago
  Exactly. Above all, my concern is that, at least from the linked article, I don't see why an attacker wouldn't be able to train a neural network himself to then decrypt the data. Hopefully they addressed this point in the paper.
• TechDebtDevin 2y ago
  Well we do manufacture TPMs..