3 ms·
This is as good a thread as any to perhaps start a discussion on something that's been on my mind ever since I learnt about the NSA's penchant for hiring mathem
by bdhe 13y ago
This is as good a thread as any to perhaps start a discussion on something that's been on my mind ever since I learnt about the NSA's penchant for hiring mathematicians and cryptographers.
How would you reasonably estimate the NSA's academic prowess when it comes to crypto/codebreaking? How does this compare to the state-of-the-art in academia?
I am less interested (but definitely so) in knowing or estimating more about how such a budget helps in deploying and building systems to collect/store intelligence information. I also wouldn't be surprised if they are fairly ahead of the curve in terms of zero-day exploits and the like.
The thing that most makes me curious is in terms of pure mathematics (like better factoring algorithms, better predictors of pseudorandomness, weaknesses in commonly used parameters or poor choice of certain elliptic curves, say).
There are few interesting pieces of information that would help
-- a rough headcount of people in positions comparable to post-docs and professors in the worldwide crypto/math community. I find it incredibly hard to imagine a mathematical breakthrough without significant training and continuous involvement in the research community. Do they get a fair share of the best mathematicians out there? Does the pay make it a fairly attractive destination?
-- whether or not they have an active "collaboration" and "internal publication" environment, once again, comparable to the dozen or so reputable conferences occurring yearly that allows for exchange of several interesting ideas across 100s of people with the express incentive in attending these conferences being discussion and collaboration.
-- how much we can extrapolate from just 2 instances (from what I know) of the NSA being a decade or more ahead of the curve (the DES S-box and public-key cryptosystem examples). What's a reasonable way, as outsiders, of starting to get a legitimate guess? Do we have more examples or at least hints of such possible examples?
(ps: I see after posting this that several other people have raised similar points in the thread. I'd love to learn more about why Bruce Schneier thought that the NSA was decades ahead in 1996 and whether he holds the same opinion in 2013)
- rjsw 13y agoSome people [1] get involved in crypto without specific training. [1] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/crypt.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/crypt.html
- abecedarius 13y agoOn inventing public-key crypto, GCHQ was 3 or 4 years ahead of the public: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography#History That source says nothing about the NSA. Is it believed the NSA invented it earlier and didn't share with GCHQ?
- mturmon 13y agoI think it's an excellent question. The "intelligence community" sponsors a lot of math and fundamental physics work in academia and the national labs. The grants are laundered through an intermediary, so you don't know who and in what agency is interested in the work. I think of that visible side as one way for them to keep their foot in the door, to check the pace of advances on the unclassified side. But you're really asking about the classified "shadow" of that open work, which by definition is hard to measure. I think one easy yardstick is "how much a mathematician makes" versus the intelligence budget. This leads me to think that they can hire a lot of mathematicians. And let's face it, the subject matter is really cool. There's a reason that mathematicians throughout history have been interested in coding. Now imagine someone paying them to do it. A senior academic I knew (in the information theory area) consulted at the NSA for several summers. His work was done in a Faraday cage, and that's all he would say about it. He was top-notch in his field, and he wouldn't waste his summers with fools. I think that there are lots of similar stories. My working belief is that, in certain areas, they are way, way ahead of the open state of the art. Like with Keyhole, or tapping fiber optic cables, etc. Not everywhere, but they don't have to be ahead everywhere, just in a few places.
- VladRussian2 13y ago>And let's face it, the subject matter is really cool. There's a reason that mathematicians throughout history have been interested in coding. Now imagine someone paying them to do it. lets not forget that having friends in government intelligence (people in the shadow with strong soft powers) may be just helpful ...
- gizmo686 13y ago>whether or not they have an active "collaboration" and "internal publication" environment. Back in highschool one of my friends had an internship with the NSA. What he was doing is classified, but he is allowed to say that his work got published internally.
- techdragon 13y agoThe scope of this internal publishing system and the volumes contained in it, really is one of those details I wish would leak out. The open secret is 'the NSA has a LOT more UberMaths, PolyMaths, CryptoWizards, and sundry than any other organisation' ... the unanswered question is 'Just how much work do they do advancing the classified state of the art?'