> 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
