Sign in / up

back to article Crypto shocker: 'Perfect cipher' dates back to telegraphs

A computer scientist has unearthed evidence that a theoretically unbreakable form of cryptography was in use by telegraph operators as early as 1882, 35 years before its supposed invention by a duo from Bell Labs and the US Army. The one-time pad, which is also known as the perfect cipher, uses a random key that is shared by …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. bill 36
    Happy

    you should know

    that here in Austria, online banking with the RaiffeisenBank is always done with one time pads.

    We sign for them every time we need a new pad and any login to the bank can only be done using them once each login.

    Plus we need the standard username, password, account details first of course.

    Standard practice and works without problems.

    Its probably why, most sales or buying/selling transactions are carried out using only IBAN and account numbers. Paypal not required which is goodness in itself.

    1 0
    1. Stoneshop
      Reply Icon

      Not only in Austria

      and I think that what they're using are not pads in the encryption sense, but TANs, Transaction Authorisation Numbers. A sort of single-use password.

      The Dutch Postbank/ING Bank uses them too. Alternatively, you can have them send you a TAN by SMS the moment you want to finalise your transactions, which is not all that secure, but probably enough so given the limited time such a TAN is valid

      1 0
  2. stubert
    Happy

    @Stoneshop

    Thanks, that cleared it up for me! So to make this practical and totally secure the key is the protocol whereby you send the key to the recipient, if you can do that securely in a way that guarantees the pad has not been modified or duplicated in transit, then the one time pad (given as someone stated that the entropy is large enough) is inpenetrable and can allow the sending time-critical messages securely over insecure channels.

    0 0
  3. NomNomNom

    So

    This is just another form of security through obscurity. Instead of sending a plaintext message you are just obscuring it with a key and now instead of needing the hide the message you have to hide the key. So in a way the key now becomes the message. This is why all key based encryption systems are bunk. You still have something that needs protecting and delivering and because it's no longer the message people get lulled into a false sense of security.

    As for unbreakable - any plaintext message is unbreakable if you destroy it afterwards so that there's nothing to break. The strongest form of security is not to send messages in the first place. I always say if you need to communicate with other people you are doing something wrong.

    0 6
    1. Daniel B.
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Public-key cryptography?

      That's what Public-key crypto solves. Send the key, encrypted in such a way that only the intended recipient can decrypt it.

      0 0
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        flawed

        public key cryptography is flawed as it relies on keeping a private key safe. It's impossible to keep anything safe unless you destroy it first

        0 2
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    So what we learned is Patents even back then were based on prior art

    So what we learned is Patents even back then were based on prior art; Does this not further highlight the flaws in the patent process that even over 100 years later still need addressing.

    I wonder, but coud the phrase 9 out of 10 patent owners found there cats had already invented it - ever be coined. Probably best not, as that is probably copyrighted somewere.

    But with the volume of patents dumped for approval every day increasing, sadly some even more obvious still get thru, despite the calls of IT forums naming prior art. This only puts the costs of patent application up and further stifeles the young solo inventors from making there mark only for there invention to get reinvented later and patented by some larger company who can afford lawyers and we all know after a few years in courts were that can end up for the little people.

    Lovely find and great research in spotting this - a beutiful example of how most patents have already been done previously. There again I wonder if the UK govemental spies pay anything to RSA given they had that system already albeit labeled secret uk stuff.

    0 0
  5. bep

    Codes and stuff

    An important point to remember about the use of codes is that the first principle is that "The enemy knows the code". Encoding a message delays the enemy knowing its contents until its too late for them to make use of the information, but never assume that the enemy will never break your code. Encoding a message shouldn't encourage you to include far more information than you prudently should. The advantage of the one time pad, if i understand it correctly, is that even if it was somehow broken or guessed the enemy only gets the contents of that particular message. This is rarely worth the effort involved.

    In the 1950s Russian spies were given one time pads made of, IIRC, cellulose; if MI5 came knocking a quick stub of a lit cigarette and viola, no more pad.

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like