From: wichita@cyberstation.net
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 01:20:59 -0800 (PST)
To: John Anonymous MacDonald <nobody@cypherpunks.ca>
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <199611250124.RAA07293@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961130031903.19278K-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:

> 
> At 7:10 AM 11/24/1996, The Deviant wrote:
> >On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> >> At 6:56 PM 11/23/1996, The Deviant wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> >> >> The good news is that you can prove a negative.  For example, it has
> >> >> been proven that there is no algorithm which can tell in all cases
> >> >> whether an algorithm will stop.
> >> >
> >> >No, he was right.  They can't prove that their system is unbreakable.
> >> >They _might_ be able to prove that their system hasn't been broken, and
> >> >they _might_ be able to prove that it is _unlikely_ that it will be, but
> >> >they *CAN NOT* prove that it is unbreakable.  This is the nature of
> >> >cryptosystems.
> >> 
> >> Please prove your assertion.
> >> 
> >> If you can't prove this, and you can't find anybody else who has, why
> >> should we believe it?
> >
> >Prove it?  Thats like saying "prove that the sun is bright on a sunny
> >day".  Its completely obvious.
> 
> In other words, you can't prove it.  Thought so.
> 
> >If somebody has a new idea on how to attack their algorithm, it might
> >work.  Then the system will have been broken.  You never know when
> >somebody will come up with a new idea, so the best you can truthfully
> >say is "it hasn't been broken *YET*".  As I remember, this was mentioned
> >in more than one respected crypto book, including "Applied Cryptography"
> >(Schneier).
> 
> Page number?
> 
> Perhaps it would be helpful to hear a possible proof.  If somebody
> were to show that breaking a certain cryptographic algorithm was
> NP-complete, many people would find this almost as good as proof that
> the algorithm is unbreakable.
> 
> Then if a clever person were to show that the NP-complete problems
> were not solvable in any faster way than we presently know how, you
> would have proof that a cryptographic algorithm was unbreakable.
> 
> There is no obvious reason why such a proof is not possible.
> 
> diGriz
> 
> 
I agree entirely, it is self evident that our system is unbreakable. Look
at it, as this author obviously has, and you will discover that truth for
yourself.

With kindest regards,

Don Wood