RE: Polio, DES Crack, and Proofs of Concept

2002-08-14 Thread Trei, Peter

 Khoder bin Hakkin[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
 
 In the most recent _Science_ some biologists gripe that the scientists
 who synthesized infectious
 poliovirus from its description were not doing anything novel, just a
 prank.  Any biologist
 would have known that, since you could concatenate nucleotide strings,
 and since polio needs nothing
 besides DNA (eg no enzymes) to be infectious, obviously you can synth
 polio.
 
 This is *remarkably* similar to cognescenti reactions to the DES Crack
 project.  Yes, it was
 obvious it would work, and it was largely unnecessary (from a
 security-planning perspective)
 to actually do it.  But it was proof-of-concept.  Like synthesizing
 polio.
 
Yes, it was obvious to any technically educated person. 

Nevertheless, until it was done, there were USG officials claiming 
that it was impossible; that any real DES cracker would melt down,
and we ought to be happy with 56 bit DES. Politicians and government 
employees lie, and they usually get away with it. 

Of course, the very statement that '56 bit DES is uncrackable, so there
is no need for you to export anything better' is inherently 
self-contradictory - if it's really uncrackable, then there is not rational
reason not to allow export of 128 or 512 bit symmetrical encryption
as well - uncrackable is uncrackable, after all.

I started the DES crack project after the USG had magnaminiously 
proposed raising the limit for exportable key lengths from 40 to 
56 bits. I got RSA to put up the money, and worked with RSA Labs
on the format of the challenges.  They succeeded in every way I
could have wanted.

In the real world, one conclusive demo is worth a thousand 
theoretical papers.

Peter Trei




RE: Polio, DES Crack, and Proofs of Concept

2002-08-14 Thread Trei, Peter

 Khoder bin Hakkin[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
 
 In the most recent _Science_ some biologists gripe that the scientists
 who synthesized infectious
 poliovirus from its description were not doing anything novel, just a
 prank.  Any biologist
 would have known that, since you could concatenate nucleotide strings,
 and since polio needs nothing
 besides DNA (eg no enzymes) to be infectious, obviously you can synth
 polio.
 
 This is *remarkably* similar to cognescenti reactions to the DES Crack
 project.  Yes, it was
 obvious it would work, and it was largely unnecessary (from a
 security-planning perspective)
 to actually do it.  But it was proof-of-concept.  Like synthesizing
 polio.
 
Yes, it was obvious to any technically educated person. 

Nevertheless, until it was done, there were USG officials claiming 
that it was impossible; that any real DES cracker would melt down,
and we ought to be happy with 56 bit DES. Politicians and government 
employees lie, and they usually get away with it. 

Of course, the very statement that '56 bit DES is uncrackable, so there
is no need for you to export anything better' is inherently 
self-contradictory - if it's really uncrackable, then there is not rational
reason not to allow export of 128 or 512 bit symmetrical encryption
as well - uncrackable is uncrackable, after all.

I started the DES crack project after the USG had magnaminiously 
proposed raising the limit for exportable key lengths from 40 to 
56 bits. I got RSA to put up the money, and worked with RSA Labs
on the format of the challenges.  They succeeded in every way I
could have wanted.

In the real world, one conclusive demo is worth a thousand 
theoretical papers.

Peter Trei