Jim Gillogly <jim@mycroft.rand.org> writes: > In article <0fpiZBG00WC70qOKYw@andrew.cmu.edu> you write: > >suppose i knew how the algorithm worked and knew the N for my chip, but > >did not know F, then by cryptanalysis i might be able to determine F from > >if law enforcement field  > >   E[E[K; U] + N; F] > >not knowing N would might make this much harder. >  > They're betting that you can't do this, even if you know N.  Even if you > know E, in fact, which they're trying to keep secret.  If you can find E > by grinding down the chip, presumably you can find F as well.  But we can't > do this right now with DES, even knowing the encryption method without > doing almost the whole 56-bit search.  That is not true, with chosen plaintext attacks DES keys can be determined without the full search.  >  > >Now suppose that I know F, (either legitimately or not), > >If I know K (either because I am involved in the conversation, or I know U > >for a party in the conversation), I may now be able to determine U for the > >other party. >  > Again, they're betting that you can't find U given K -- i.e. they claim the > encryption is strong.  (Trust us...)  I am not willing to take that bet.  > >If I know F I can also defeat the law enforcement field, since I could > >make my own, with a different K then the one I am using. Knowing F also > >allows traffic analysis to be performed. So I might not know what you are > >saying but I could know who you are saying it too. >  > I'm not sure there'll be a way to shove arbitrary key and data through your > chip, but if so, this part's OK.  (We're assuming E is unknown.)  You can obviously shove arbitrary data through your chip...... As for the key, it is stated that the sesion key exchange is external to the chip, so I can pick my keys too.  > >Now I admit that someone trying to compute U will not have lots of > >messages to work from, but since we have no way of knowing that the key > >generation method does not (deliberately?) generate weak keys, or for that > >matter that the published method is in fact used, perhaps the U's will be > >chosen from know weak keys for the system. >  > They assume that you won't be able to find U no matter how many messages > you have.  If <they> could break U, they wouldn't need the key escrow.  BING BING BING BING BING, THAT EXACTLY MY POINT, SINCE WE CANT KNOW THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS CAPABILITY, THE ONLY SAFE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY DO... i admit that most of my cryptographic complaints are probably unfounded, but since we cant know one way or the other, im not gonig to take their word for it....  > >Obviously the compromise of F would be a disaster, both to law enforcement > >for whom this whole thing is designed, and for the people who believe that > >it is giving them security. F is but one number, and I sure that alot of > >people (more then 1) know what it is (and if some "panel of experts" is > >going to check it over for flaws then many more will know F, forget > >grinding chips, bribery and blackmail work just fine. >  > It's not clear that the "experts" will be told F.  In fact, I'd be surprised. > I'd expect something more of the form of the FIPS pub describing DES, so that > they could look at the algorithm in general, rather than with the specific > set of keys chosen.  Oh come on, thats like saying you could evaluate DES without the S-box constants.....