Re: IPG Algorith Broken!

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.

>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.

>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.

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.

diGriz

-----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-----

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, The Deviant wrote:

> -----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.
> 

To repeat Frantz', I thought Shannon proved OTPs were unbreakable. I can
also assure you that they are unbreakable, because you cannot solve a
three variable equation where only one variable is known, ie. the
ciphertext. That is a fact, not an opinion like God, or Oswald, there are
facts and opinions. It is a fact that OTPs are unbreakable and it is a
fact that our system is unbreakable. Q.E.D. for the very same reasons
except that we must use exclusionary proof instead of inclusionary proof
like Shannon. 

With Kindest Regards,

Don Wood

wichita@cyberstation.net wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> To repeat Frantz', I thought Shannon proved OTPs were unbreakable. I can
> also assure you that they are unbreakable, because you cannot solve a
> three variable equation where only one variable is known, ie. the
> ciphertext. That is a fact, not an opinion like God, or Oswald, there are
> facts and opinions. It is a fact that OTPs are unbreakable and it is a
> fact that our system is unbreakable. Q.E.D. for the very same reasons
> except that we must use exclusionary proof instead of inclusionary proof
> like Shannon. 

Don, can you give us this proof please? I mean really complete proof, 
not vague references to other people's theorems and metadiscussions. 

I do agree with you that your opponents freuquently attack you without
actually proving what they say. This is unfortunate. I do hope that you, 
though, can be above your detractors able to produce real proofs without
resorting to namecalling and character assassination.

I.e., your bashing of Paul Bradley, for example, may or may not
concvince me that Paul does not understand cryptography. It will NOT
convince me, though, that IPG system is good. I am not interested in
your attacks on persons, however right you may be. Rather, it is
important that you give us a good proof of security of IPG system.

Thanks

	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes to Don Wood:
>
> I.e., your bashing of Paul Bradley, for example, may or may not
> concvince me that Paul does not understand cryptography.

However Paul Bradley's own rants, such as the recurrent discussion of
"brute force attacks on one-time pads" should convince everyone that
Paul Bradley doesn't know anything about cryptography and is unwilling
to learn.

As a teacher, I'm used to getting a class full of people who don't know
much about the subject at the beginning of the semester and learn a great
deal about it by the end of the semester. If you've never taught, you
can't imagine the feeling of accomplishment and personal satisfaction that
comes with it.

I get occasional assholes who are unwilling and unable to learn. I've never
seen a gang so dense as the "cypherpunks". Not even on Usenet.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> > diGriz
> 
> Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts.  Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

     The Stainless Steel Rat. Harry Harrison.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

> > On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> > > diGriz
> > 
> > Use an anon. remailer and sign your posts.  Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

Actually, rather clever if you're trying to estlablish reputation.  Just
make sure you use the right key.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland