"Omniscient Cryptanalysis"... (was Re: Knuth needs killing)

[R. A. Hettinga]

...or, "Newby's Rejoinder to Knuth's Paradox".

This is just about the funniest thing I've read on cryptography in months.
Maybe years.

Outstanding. Laugh-out-loud funny.

Somewhere, I bet even St. Anselm is laughing, and Bishop Berkeley is
pouring himself a stiff one...

Still grinning,
RAH

--- begin forwarded text


Status:  U
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:53:21 -0500
From: Greg Newby <gbnewby at ils.unc.edu>
To: cypherpunks at lne.com
Subject: Re: Knuth needs killing
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Sender: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com

Knuth used to be a logical man.  What happened?

(Religious) Logic:

	- God knows all of Knuth's secrets, thus Knuth's keys are public
	- Knuth is a man, and God knows all men
	- Therefore, God knows all of everyone's secrets, and all keys
	are public

So what's the problem?  All law enforcement needs to do, in the
case of urgent need to get keys, is pray.  It doesn't matter how
tough the crypto is, and the NSA doesn't even need to be consulted.
We already know that the God is on the US' side, so we know this
technique won't work for the foreign pagans.

In this case, a little less separation of church & state might
serve us well....

  -- Greg

On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 05:50:20AM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> Question: What do you think of research in cryptographic algorithms? And
> what do you think of efforts by politicians today to put limits on
> ryptography research?
>
> Knuth: Certainly the whole area of cryptographic algorithms has been one
> of the most active and exciting a reas in computer science for the past
> ten years, and many of the results are spectacular and beautiful. I
> cant claim that Im good at that particular subject, though, because I
> cant think of sneaky attacks myself. But the key problem is, what about
> the abuse of secure methods of communication? I dont want criminals to
> use these methods to become better criminals. Im a religious person,
> and I think that God knows all my secrets, so I always feel that
> whatever Im thinking is public knowledge in some way. I come from this
> kind of background. I dont feel I have to encrypt everything I do. On
> the other hand, I would certainly feel quite differently if somebody
> started to use such openness against me, by stealing my bank accounts or
> whatever. So I am supportive of a high level of secrecy. But whether it
> should be impossible for the authorities to decode things even in
> criminal investigations, in extreme casesthere I tend to come down on
> the side of wanting to have some way to break some keys sometimes.

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com