Re: [Sci.nanotech] Encrypting Nanotechnology


In article <12latacigiqha0c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
says...

Yes, Schneier does say interesting things, and I've read quite a
bit of his writings. He makes a lot of sense, but I don't
necessarily agree with everything he says; I suspect that both
of us find that with many subjects.

Careful use of simple mechanisms that are well understood can
often produce useful results - to use a (crude) analogy, people
still construct stone buildings even though far more advanced
construction methods are known, and you can use modern methods
to make them comfortable and pleasant places to live in, or: we
still use crowbars, and the lever was probably one of the first
tools discovered.

I suspect that this is an area where there will be a lot of
disagreement, and that some form of practical demonstration,
which can relatively easily be done on the macro scale, will be
required.

I in no way guarantee the systems that I have sketched will
work, there is always the possibility that something has been
overlooked, but from what I have seen so far, of it and similar
systems over the last 15+ years, I feel it is worth further
investigation.

There are two problems, Rory.

The first is that cryptography is a discipline that is, by its nature,
extremely well-grounded in very rigourous, very specialized
mathematics... and it seems to be one of those disciplines where non-
experts very consistently underestimate the difficulty of the tasks.
I'm certainly no expert myself, but I've caught extremely smart people
make elementary mistakes like rolling their own random number generators
and assuming that's "good enough." (I never understood why-- there are
cryptography-strength public libraries available for that.) It's not.

The second is that one of the basic rules is to assume a system is
unsecure unless proven, mathematically and if necessary, physically
proven otherwise. STarting with an insecure system and not giving
enough information to analyze it leaves outside observers with no better
assumption to make than unreliability for your system.

If you have details that you think will stand up to scrutiny, please
post them.

--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
    ... mathematics. ... science it is undoubtedly important to be conscious of the method ... order to explain, in turn, the meaning of these expressions, ... When we set out to construct a given discipline, we distinguish, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: de Bruijn reveals repressive political agenda
    ... be something disciplinary about its axioms. ... source _outside_ mathematics that provides the axioms/its principles. ... If you feel discipline like slavery, ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: the need for relevance
    ... agree or not that mathematics is an autonomous discipline, ... be something disciplinary about its axioms. ... source _outside_ mathematics that provides the axioms/its principles. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
    ... Do you suppose, therefor, that mathematics would benefit from ... mathematics could then transend that logical incompleteness? ... limited myself to a single discipline, but have tried to understand the possible connections between science, metaphysics, mathematics, religion, and "other" belief systems. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: the need for relevance
    ... Math is not oblivious to the need for relevance, ... I have a page which is called "Snippets of Pure Applicable Mathematics" ... is an *autonomous* discipline with a conceptual framework of its own. ... autonomy. ...
    (sci.math)