1996-11-23 - Re: IPG Algorith Broken!

Header Data

From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
To: nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald)
Message Hash: c16a9e02b02816b4671c53ccde4cb242751c92c0431c20a5d1499446d5ca64fb
Message ID: <199611232033.MAA01386@slack.lne.com>
Reply To: <199611231914.LAA10101@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-23 20:34:08 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:34:08 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:34:08 -0800 (PST)
To: nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald)
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <199611231914.LAA10101@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <199611232033.MAA01386@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
> At 8:09 AM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
> >No, you can't.  It's impossible to prove an algorithim unbreakable.
> No?  Please prove your assertion.

You can't prove a negative.  The best IPG could say is that
it can't be broken with current technology.
Next week someone might come up with a new way
to break ciphers that renders the IPG algorithim breakable.

You point could have been that the same problem exists
for proofs- that next week someone could come up
with a way to prove, for all time, that an algorithim
really IS unbreakable.  So, to cover that posibility
I should have said "it's currently impossible to
prove an algorithim unbreakable". :-)


Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF