Re: coding and nnet's

At 7:52 PM 11/10/95, Bill Stewart wrote:

>Schneier's 2nd edition says "Neural nets aren't terribly useful for
>cryptography,
>primarily because of the shape of the solution space.  Neural nets work
>best for
>problems that have a continuity of solutions, some better than others.
>This allows a neural net to learn, proposing better and better solutions as
>it does.
>Breaking an algorithm provides for very little in the way of learning
>opportunities:
>You either recover the key or you don't. (At least this is true if the
>algorithm is
>any good.)  Neural nets work well in structured environments when there is
>something
>to learn, but not in the high-entropy, seemingly random world of cryptography."
>And he doesn't give any references.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This paragraph sounds a _lot_ like what I wrote in sci.crypt a while back
on the usefullness of AI and neural nets for crypto. Sounds almost like
exactly the paragraph I wrote, in fact.

And I recollect that Bruce dropped me a note saying I made the point
succinctly and that he wanted to use what I said in his next edition. (My
recollection at least, but I don't have any easy way anymore of searching
my several hundred megs of accumulated mail, articles, etc.)

I have no problem with Bruce using my points. I hope he didn't use my
_exact_ words, though. But not a cosmic issue.

--Tim May

Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
> At 7:52 PM 11/10/95, Bill Stewart wrote:

>>Schneier's 2nd edition says "Neural nets aren't terribly useful for
>>cryptography, primarily because of the shape of the solution space.
>>Neural nets work best for problems that have a continuity of solutions,
>>some better than others.  This allows a neural net to learn, proposing
>>better and better solutions as it does.  Breaking an algorithm provides
>>for very little in the way of learning opportunities:  You either recover
>>the key or you don't. (At least this is true if the algorithm is any
>>good.) Neural nets work well in structured environments when there is
>>something to learn, but not in the high-entropy, seemingly random world of
>>cryptography."
>>And he doesn't give any references.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> This paragraph sounds a _lot_ like what I wrote in sci.crypt a while back
> on the usefullness of AI and neural nets for crypto. Sounds almost like
> exactly the paragraph I wrote, in fact.

As it happens, I saved that one, because I thought the "needle standing up
from a flat plain" metaphor was so apt; I've used it in a couple of talks
without remembering where I got it.  Here's your message to sci.crypt:

  From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
  Subject: Re: Neural nets & Crypto
  Message-Id: <tcmayCuBz0q.739@netcom.com>
  Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 17:53:13 GMT

  Neural nets are not likely to do well with modern ciphers (e.g., RSA,
  IDEA, DES, etc.), mainly because of the shape of the solution space.

  Instead of the "rolling hills and valleys" that neural nets (and
  related methods, such as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing,
  etc.) do well in, the solution space for modern ciphers offers very
  little in the way of "learning" opportunities: you either have the
  solution (the key), or you don't.

  Think of a needle standing up from a flat plain...a NN or any other
  hill-climber could wander for years and never find it.

  I suspect there are uses in peripheral aspects, such as guessing
  passwords (when people have not picked high-entropy passwords, but
  have instead used familiar names). Or in traffic analysis.

  But the move in modern cryptology is definitely away from using
  anything with "structure" that can be learned. Put another way, neural
  nets and such work well in structured environments, where there's
  something to _learn), but not in the high-entropy, seemingly random
  world of encrypted data.

  --Tim May

A subsequent message (which I also saved) dealt with genetic programming
and was also interesting.

	Jim Gillogly
	21 Blotmath S.R. 1995, 01:22