Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: me@******.net (Hexren)
Subject: [OT] Data Jack/Cyber Deck Question
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:52:54 +0200
>>
>> Wow this gets really complex and expensive. In this case the runners would
>> have to arrange for some down time at the transmitter. Then they would have
>> to put a feed through tap in the line while maintaining the vacuum seal (not
>> impossible but difficult). With the feed through they could sample the
>> photon pulses to break the encryption. Inputting there own data into the
>> stream would require another tap which could not be in place until the
>> encryption is broken. This kind of system would be incredibly expensive. I
>> would expect to see it only in extremely restricted government installations
>> or really high level corp setups. Not something your average runner is
>> going to come across. The equipment to tap this kind of line would run
>> about $100,000.00 today let alone in 2060.
>>
>> Coyote
>>
>>
JZ> Vaccuum seals don't come into it.

JZ> Today the equipment to tap this kind of link is impossible. Not
JZ> expensive, not difficult, not complex. Impossible. Really, truly against
JZ> the laws of physics as we know them.

JZ> You can't tap the line. As soon as you interact with the data stream (ie
JZ> - observe it in any way), you change it. And you don't know what it
JZ> looked like before you interfered. The target does know what it looked
JZ> like before you interfered, because he gets told how it was generated.
JZ> Any time you look at the data, regardless what method you use, the
JZ> target will know.

JZ> In order to listen in on such a communication system, you'd need to
JZ> intercept the signal BEFORE it is coded, and if your targets have any
JZ> sense, AFTER it is decoded as well. That means you require physical
JZ> penetration of the site. That's as secure as a data connection gets.

JZ> Additionally, you don't need an optical fibre to do it. Such encrypted
JZ> streams have been done through the atmosphere to distances of 23km:

JZ> http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/10/5/1

JZ> It IS possible that the laws of physics will be found to be incorrect,
JZ> at which point, it IS possible that this method of encryption will
JZ> become crackable. But that's a lot of 'possibles'.

---------------------------------------------

It is not unbreakable. The described method will allow 2 parties to
send keys for one time use and to know if the line has been tapped at
the time of sending. If the line has been tapped physical security
has to clear the line, after that has been done another one time key
is send. The procedure is repeated until the key is sucessfuly
transmitted and it is verified that the line was not tapped at the
sending time, after that has happend the Paydata is encypted with the
one time key. The Paydata can then be send over open channels for it is
safely encypted with the oe time key. <--- that is what I understand
of all that.
Message no. 2
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: [OT] Data Jack/Cyber Deck Question
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:02:41 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hexren" <me@******.net>

> JZ> http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/10/5/1

> It is not unbreakable. The described method will allow 2 parties to
> send keys for one time use and to know if the line has been tapped
at
> the time of sending. If the line has been tapped physical security
> has to clear the line, after that has been done another one time
key
> is send. The procedure is repeated until the key is sucessfuly
> transmitted and it is verified that the line was not tapped at the
> sending time, after that has happend the Paydata is encypted with
the
> one time key. The Paydata can then be send over open channels for
it is
> safely encypted with the oe time key.

Well, you could also send the encrypted paydata over the same circuit
and if at any time a tap was placed on the line, you'd instantly know
and could shut down the stream. Sure, it might take a millisecond or
two, if automated, but that's probably not going to be enough time to
snag the paydata.

If you send the paydata over open channels, it's still possible for it
to be tapped (and you not know). Also, although one-time keys are
currently considered secure, it's still theoretically possible to
break them, or rather it hasn't been theoretically proven impossible.
If you send over this line, well, you simply can't break it. [Unless
physics as we know it turns out to be *wrong*, which is rather
unlikely.]

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ: Da Twink Daddy (514984)
YM: DaTwinkDaddy
AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 3
From: jzealey@***.edu.au (James Zealey)
Subject: [OT] Data Jack/Cyber Deck Question
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:27:48 +1000
> From:
> Hexren <me@******.net>
>
> It is not unbreakable. The described method will allow 2 parties to
> send keys for one time use and to know if the line has been tapped at
> the time of sending. If the line has been tapped physical security
> has to clear the line, after that has been done another one time key
> is send. The procedure is repeated until the key is sucessfuly
> transmitted and it is verified that the line was not tapped at the
> sending time, after that has happend the Paydata is encypted with the
> one time key. The Paydata can then be send over open channels for it is
> safely encypted with the oe time key. <--- that is what I understand
> of all that.
>
No - the tapper must essentially guess the key. That's all he can do. He
has a 50% (or so) chance of getting each transmitted bit correct, and he
doesn't know he's incorrect until he attempts to apply the key.
Additionally, if he gets just a single bit wrong, then the reciever and
transmitter get garbage, and know the line was interfered with.
Message no. 4
From: jzealey@***.edu.au (James Zealey)
Subject: [OT] Data Jack/Cyber Deck Question
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:28:30 +1000
> From:
> Da Twink Daddy <datwinkdaddy@*******.com>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:02:41 -0500
>
> If you send the paydata over open channels, it's still possible for it
> to be tapped (and you not know). Also, although one-time keys are
> currently considered secure, it's still theoretically possible to
> break them, or rather it hasn't been theoretically proven impossible.
> If you send over this line, well, you simply can't break it. [Unless
> physics as we know it turns out to be *wrong*, which is rather
> unlikely.]
>

See section 4.4 of:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cryptography-faq/part04/

A simple search will turn up multiple confirming pages.

One-time pads are considered impossible to break.

And here's the quantifier - impossible is used in the sense that it is
impossible for a pink elephant to spontaeneously come into existence in
front of you while you read this. It's still possible, the possibility
is just so mindblowingly slim that it's not worth considering, and it's
certainly not worth counting on.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Data Jack/Cyber Deck Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.