From: daleh@ix.netcom.com (Dale Harrison (AEGIS))
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a90b8ab6ddade2af44b73673b496f14d3d94e66425ec2ac1b48b0906538ed2cf
Message ID: <199501122233.OAA02325@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-12 22:34:47 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 14:34:47 PST
From: daleh@ix.netcom.com (Dale Harrison (AEGIS))
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 14:34:47 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
Message-ID: <199501122233.OAA02325@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
You wrote:
>You don't always need the correct answer. You just need the correct
>answer most of the time. You're trying to create a presumption about
>behavior. Ensuring that you can't read almost all of the traffic is a
>pretty good way to assure people that you don't try to make sense of
>any of it.
I'm still not making my point. Encryption is not a data 'state' that can
be tested for in the way that liquid/solid/vapour are states
of matter. Encryption is a data 'interpretation' for which there are an
arbitrairly large number of interpretations available for any
given dataset. There is no algorithmic test that can applied to a dataset
that will be able to establish the existance or non-existance
of a given interpretation. If you're given an unkown dataset and are
asked the question, 'Is this an image file' or 'Is this an encrypted
file' or 'Is this an audio clip', there is no algorithmic test that can
answer any of these questions in either the affermative or the negative.
This is just an alternate phrasing of Goedel's Undecidability Theorem.
This problem lies permanantly outside the outer boundary of algorithmic
capability.
Let me now spin a little tale as to how this affects an operator of a
re-mailer or datahaven. This tale has two characters, Paco the child
pornogropher and Eric the honest RM/DH operater. Paco begins by
inventing the new 'Foolproof Barometric Graphic Image Format' (aka FooBar
GIF) of which only Paco knows the internals. A FooBar GIF has a
statistical profile that looks remarkably like a PGP file, in fact it
even comes with a PGP header! Nothing illegal here. Now Paco writes a
FooBar GIF Viewer which he sales to child-porn types. Again, there's
nothing illegal about the sale of such a piece of software. Paco now
anonymously loads Eric's DH with lots of child-porn FooBar GIF's via
Eric's anon-RM. These files of course sail right through Eric's filters
with nary a scratch. As far as Eric knows he's holding PGP encrypt
files. Now Paco advertises the availability of lots of 'good' picture on
Eric's DH that can be used with the newly purchased FooBar GIF Viewers.
Then the cops get ahold of one of Paco's FooBar GIF Viewers and downloads
some FooBar GIFs from Eric's DH and the last words we ever hear from Eric
are "I swear I thought they were PGP files, I swear to God I thought they
were....." as the authorities drag his carcass off to jail. Whose going
to believe Eric's protests of innocence? "After all", says the
prosecutor to the jury, "wasn't Eric explicitly filtering out what he
didn't want in. If fact", says the prosecutor, "his filter seems to have
been designed specifically to allow these kiddie-porn files in and to
reject all others." A sad end indeed!
Dale H.
Return to January 1995
Return to “eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)”