From: The Deviant <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:58:12 -0800 (PST)
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <199611240021.QAA16004@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.961124024959.14102A-100000@random.sp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:

> 
> At 12:33 PM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
> >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.
> 
> If it can't be proven, why do you believe it is true?
> 
> 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.

> >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.
> 
> The best they can say is what they did say: they have a proof that
> their system is unbreakable.  What you question, quite reasonably,
> is whether they have such a proof.

It is impossible to prove such a thing.  It's like saying you have proof
that you have the last car of a certain model ever to be built.  Anybody
could come along and build another, and then you don't have the last one.

> 
> >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". :-)
> 
> Or, more accurately, nobody credible has seen such a proof.  But, a
> clever person might invent one.

There *IS NO SUCH PROOF*.  Just like you can't prove that god created the
universe, or that Oswald shot Kennedy, and so on and so forth.  It can't
be proven.  It never has been proven, and it never will be proven.  People
have new ideas, new algorithms are invented.  Someday, somebody will crack
_all_ the cryptosystems that have now been invented.

> 
> IPG is eager to demonstrate their proof.  They should hire a professional
> skilled in the art to evaluate their proof and publicly announce the
> results.  This costs less than $5000 and would be, presumably, a small part
> of their profits should they have invented such an algorithm.
> 

Or, better yet, release this "proof", so that we may punch holes in its
flawed logic.

> diGriz

Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts.  Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

 --Deviant
   PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39

"By golly, I'm beginning to think Linux really *is* the best thing since
liced bread."
		-- Vance Petree, Virginia Power


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMpe5eDCdEh3oIPAVAQF62Qf9HCtS2Ik6pZPgonn+TKPC0tEZeNL30Z7B
zgvE+SL1/RcEcqNnpWZ94pNTVSfPyLJCEksuI1ZB+UzGN4Y8nh3rckUUHtNzNazb
MwXbf5N5+TpYjwNAGJ4GkqoiaMr0RVaoAUWNRiGWuXZDt3wUe8La4amSu45W9qTE
QpDZiwENyKI1BLOkWlMlhO0AFAY6C1C1+QGDMPCX+smbbg81/5qP/6F05F3ALhq9
KVPGw7nJ8ejmqDogLvhUHEVl+JjdpB/zVhlwSgfatRl+ziZzNoIpC0T3Ru5IfD1T
WT9AAKNzqZCBNSeBQCI68B0LEvMta9B0EuzwPq9FnOWXjCaC3G1ymw==
=k1Cr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----