From: gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.security.misc
Subject: "Sneakers" -- action/adventure movie about Cryptography
Date: 1 Sep 92 06:04:12 GMT
Organization: Citibank IBISM

Universal Pictures will soon release (at least in the U.S.) a movie called
"Sneakers" that purports to be an action/adventure starring a group of
free-lance computer security consultants. The plot centers around a
cryptographic device. For whatever reason, I bought the book (actually
the "novel based on the screenplay"). It was already at a Barnes and Noble
Sale Annex in Manhattan, which might indicate how well it's selling.

The details are scarce, but apparently a young, brilliant mathematician,
Gunter Janek, has made a theoretical breakthrough in the factoring of
very large numbers. He soon builds his algorithm into a small piece of
hardware, and everyone in the movie ends up fighting over it.

Once the good guys get the box (Robert Redford, Dan Aykroyd and Sidney 
Poitier are in the film, and they seem to match the descriptions of some of our 
loveable team of hackers) they soon have it "hooked up" to a computer.
They dial up a Federal Reserve funds transfer machine, which is apparently
"encrypted" and impossible to enter.

I quote:
	Some of the racing characters stopped changing and gradually
	formed recognizable combinations of letters. Then some complete
	words. Then more. Soon, most of the screen was decrypted...

So the Magic Black Box can decrypt anything based on a theoretical
breakthrough and an advance in open systems and standards technology that
won't be seen for years, if ever. It helps if the system they're breaking
in to has a dial-up connection that does some form of encryption
of the data stream rather than a password or any other form of
access validation.

But on to the cryptography -- the Russians/whomever they are now didn't
fund (or eventually steal) the box, althogh they want it. A Russian 
ambassador-type eventually tells the hero (Redford?) that the box will 
indeed break any American code. Russian and Soviet codes, he says, are 
different. "Our top codes are entirely different from yours," he says.

So -- as I've come to expect from Hollywood, most of the technical
details in the book (and I assume the movie), are either impractical,
impossible, or nonexistent. (There are a few neat tricks shown, however.)
But let's assume someone does figure out how to trivially factor very
large numbers. I understand that would defeat RSA. Am I correct? How about
DES? Are other common government and commercial cryptosystems based on
large primes? I assume that one-time pads would still be quite effective.

And how about this "Russian codes are different" stuff? Any truth to this?
I understand one can buy source code for DES and RSA on the streets of
Leningrad (according to Communications of the ACM).

Someday someone will produce a computer-cracking scene in a movie that
looks as if the people involved have logged in to a system via a modem
at least once in their lives. I don't think "Sneakers" will be it.

				greg

P.S. If no one agrees that the technical details in this movie are silly,
I'd be glad to post more.
-- 
Greg Brail ------------------ Citibank -------------------- gjb@fig.citib.com
lose (lOOz) v. 1. a. To be unable to find; mislay. b. To incur the 
deprivation of, as by negligence or accident. 2. To be unable to maintain,
sustain, or keep. 3. The most commonly misspelled word on Usenet.