Proof May Lead to Unbreakable Code. Can it be cracked ?

[bonkers325]

Yea, okay...

Cryptology experts are abuzz over a Harvard professor's claim that he can make an unbreakable code that can be used over and over again.

Computer science professor Michael Rabin, with the help of doctoral student Yanzhong Ding, developed a mathematical proof that experts say could be used to make a code indecipherable even by the most powerful computers.

Link

if it is true hot diggity damn how much would they pay someone to crack it

 

[konichiwa]

We went through this yesterday with the PSX copy-protection. Anything and everything will be cracked eventually by somebody.

 

[KameLeon]

finally something to hide my pr0n collection with!

 

[bonkers325]

<< We went through this yesterday with the PSX copy-protection. Anything and everything will be cracked eventually by somebody. >>



i just got back yesterday :Q

now take that back

 

[urbantechie]

Finally!!! Bonkers posted a news article that is usefull!!!

 

[tontod]

No code is uncrackable, its just a matter of time. Who knows how powerful supercomputers can be built in 10 years. Some dramatic development like an a totally optical computer or atomic one might make it possible to break it.

 

[bonkers325]

<< Finally!!! Bonkers posted a news article that is usefull!!! >>



har har :|

i just got back yesterday :Q

now take that back

 

[mundania]

I dunno...maybe the concept can be analogized by this...

let's say you build a 1 mile long road. eventually someone will have the gumption to walk it till the end. so you build a 1000 mile long road. we invent cars, and eventually we'll get to the end. let's say you build 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 mil long road... eventually we'll have to technology to travel till the end. but let's say you build a circular road. you'll never reach the end of it. hope this analogy works.

 

[LordMaul]

*bitch-slaps Urban for useless/stupid/flame raising post*

 

[xaigi]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only unanswerable question is the question with no answer.

 

[xaigi]

Maybe I should be more clear: Unless the key is infinite in length, the code can be broken with brute-force methods. It may take a million years, but it can be done.

 

[Pretender]

<< but let's say you build a circular road. you'll never reach the end of it. hope this analogy works. >>

Define circular. If you mean a road which goes in a normal circle, then there is no beginning nor end. You are always at the beginning, and always at the end. This would be synonimous with no encryption.

If you mean a curved road, well, it would probably be less effective than a normal road, since it wouldn't be the shortest distance between 2 points, and the cracker could just go from point a to point b directly.

Maybe this road analogy thing isn't working out...

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

well the guy isn't claiming that it's a really really really big number, he's saying he has a mathematical proof that it cannot (no possibility, not small possibility) of being cracked. At least that's what I think he's saying.

 

[bonkers325]

time will tell but this is hot right

 

[xaigi]

Yes, I know. The problem is that proofs come and go. The fact is that any code that is used twice (used to encrypt more information than lies in the code itself) must be either 1) crackable or 2) useless (the same code produces a different result on every decryption). Thats just the way it is.

<sigh> &quot;unbreakable&quot; encryption is getting to be like a perpetual motion machine for computers.

 

[Jmman]

The article doesn't really get into very much detail, so it is hard to make an educated comment on his technique. That being said, I believe it is possible make an unbreakable code, no matter the computing power available.....

 

[divinemartyr]

<< *bitch-slaps Urban for useless/stupid/flame raising post* >>



And yours was more productive how?

Anyway, this is pretty cool news if indeed it ever does come to light.

dm

 

[mundania]

well .. even with a circular road you can still start building it somehwer.. you just have to finish up where you started.

 

[Double Trouble]

&quot;unbreakable&quot;.... sheesh. There is nothing that's unbreakable, it's all a matter of time and/or resources and effort. The thing that could really throw cryptology for a giant loop is quantum computing. Isreali researchers have already shown that with quantum computing you could break a code that takes the best modern computers hundreds of years in seconds.....

 

[slipperyslope]

Geez some people on this board need to get a little more educated before talking out of their ass. I am not saying this guy has come up with unbreakable code but if he can prove it mathmatically and it other mathmaticians validate that the proof is correct then he could have an unbreakable encryption.

From what I gather he is not using an encryption method that is possible to break brufe force. That is what all encyption algorythms today rely on. They rely on the fact that it will take you 100 million years to brufe force crack it.

Some people need to take a basic logic class or something.

Jim

 

[daddyo]

There was an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago that was more detailed. The meat of it is below:



<< Dr. Rabin relies instead on the limits of memory banks in computers. No matter how powerful a computer is, no computer can store an unlimited amount of data. And yet that is what is required for an eavesdropper to break his code. The coding starts with a continuously generated string of random numbers, say from a satellite put up to broadcast them or from some other source. The numbers can be coming by at an enormous speed ? 10 million million per second, for example.

The sender of a message and its recipient agree to start plucking a sequence of numbers from that string. They may agree, for example, to send a message, encoded with any of today's publicly available encryption systems saying &quot;start&quot; and giving instructions on capturing certain of the random numbers. As they capture the numbers, the sender uses them to encode a message, and the recipient uses the numbers to decode it.

An eavesdropper can know the mathematical formula used to encode and decode, but without knowing the exact sequence of random numbers that were used in the formula to send a particular message, the eavesdropper cannot decode the message. And the only way to have that sequence is to just happen to be storing numbers from the unending stream at exactly the right moment.

If the eavesdropper, for example, had a secret way to decode the message saying &quot;start&quot; and it took a minute to do the calculation needed to decode it, it would be too late by the time the eavesdropper got going. The sender and recipient would already have their string of numbers and that string of numbers, once broadcast, could never be retrieved. It would be infeasible to store the endless string of numbers in any computer and so they are essentially gone forever.

Often, Dr. Rabin said, eavesdroppers will capture and store encoded messages hoping to decode them at later, either when computers have improved ? making it easier to do the calculations to break a code ? or when the method for encoding and decoding is known, perhaps because it has been stolen. But, he said, messages encoded with his system can never be broken by these means because the random numbers used in encoding and decoding are used once and are never stored.

&quot;That is why I call it `everlasting security,' &quot; he said.
>>



Link to Article

In spite of what all you &quot;pundits of encryption&quot; that happen to spend their days browsing internet forums, this just might be an undecipherable code.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

But you know that people using it will still open attachments that are carriers for back orifice and other programs with keystroke loggers. Hell the FBI easy read one guys email conversations simply by using a keystroke logger and got everything he typed, his usernames, passwords, and anything else they damn well pleased.

 

[Thorn]

<< well the guy isn't claiming that it's a really really really big number, he's saying he has a mathematical proof that it cannot (no possibility, not small possibility) of being cracked. At least that's what I think he's saying. >>


Our mathematics is too primitive to know if such a proof can ever be written, much less believe we've stumbled on to one at this point in our technological advancement. Just because this professor can't break the code doesn't mean that some &quot;Good Will Hunting&quot; guy won't come along and tear it apart like tissue paper. It never ceases to amaze me at the vanity of some people.

To put this all into perspective. There are still proofs and equations in the Keys of Solomon that still haven't been decyphered... and they were written over 3000 years ago. Hell, we're only now just starting to see patterns in Pi and just think how long we've been tearing that monster down (Archimedes theorized these patterns during his life time). Even Ramanujan, thought by many to be the greatest mathematician to ever live, said:

&quot;In the world of mathematics I know nothing, to delve it's mysteries is like seeing into the mind of God. Mathematically speaking, I will leave this world knowing just the barest fraction more than I did when I entered it.&quot;

 

[daddyo]

As far as I recall, a mathematical proof is not a scientific theory.

A mathematical proof is 100%. Regardless of how complicated the proof is, once it's proven and tested in the mathematical realm, it's final. Now matter how fast computers get, 1+1 is still going to equal 2.

Unless I'm totally wrong about the entire theory of mathematics.