From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
To: pmacdorn@isrinc.com
Message Hash: 499d75a260ebce17e42412dbfad078fca1804fbe4865731e7693b16c01a36f09
Message ID: <m0u7bv8-0008ykC@pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-12 12:41:41 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:41:41 +0800
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:41:41 +0800
To: pmacdorn@isrinc.com
Subject: Re: GPS-based authentication
Message-ID: <m0u7bv8-0008ykC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 11:33 AM 4/11/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote:
>I've read with interest your proposed GPS-based authentication
>mechanism (it was posted to the cypherpunks mailing list). Can you
>confirm that you wrote this? Some people on the list think it may be
>a forgery.
[deleted]
>You say:
>" The signature ... is formed from bandwidth compressed raw
>observations of all the GPS satellites in view."
>
>" The location signature is virtually impossible to forge at the required
>accuracy. This is because the GPS observations at any given time are
>essentially unpredictable to high precision due to subtle satellite orbit
>perturbations, which are unknowable in real-time, and intentional
>signal instabilities (dithering) imposed by the U.S. Department of
>Defense selective availability (SA)."
I think that Denning's paragraph is misleading. S/A is stated; what I think
they probably mean is closer to A/S, the anti-spoofing signal. The S/A
error is small and changes only slowly, the A/S signal is far faster and
could hold the data to implement the signatures. Even so, I think it would
be comparatively easy to fake a signal if you are in view of most of the
satellites in the area you wish to fake; attempting to fake something around
the world would be harder.
Aside from the technical difficulties associated with this system (everyone
has to have a GPS receiver, for instance) there is an obvious political
problem associated with trusting the government. After all, only its agents
are supposed to know the dithering code which will be transmitted by the GPS
satellite; its agents would presumably be able to fake their location since
they can anticipate the data being transmitted.
Which raises an interesting issue, I think: Would it be possible to remove
the ability of the government to fake these signals, even if the rest of the
system worked? The goal would be to prevent anybody (including the
operators of the GPS system) from being able to anticipate the dithering
codes the GPS satellites would send. One way to do that is to combine
multiple random/pseudorandom bit streams (from hundreds, thousands, or maybe
even millions of independent sources, perhaps you and me) into an overall
stream, in such a way (XOR) that no data contributor could know how the
result came out until he saw it. Each contributor would be able to verify,
however, that his data stream was used to form the eventual bit stream, and
he is confident of the randomness of the system he uses to generate that
stream. (If he isn't, he should just change systems, or add another system
to his equipment and XOR the results before he sends them off, crypted, to
the central data combiner.) Release of the decrypt keys could be delayed
"just long enough" to prevent faking.
BTW, I'm not endorsing the underlying idea. I think it's a leap backwards
for freedom.
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com
Return to April 1996
Return to “jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>”
1996-04-12 (Fri, 12 Apr 1996 20:41:41 +0800) - Re: GPS-based authentication - jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>