Timeline for Why haven't we proven many things computationally secure yet?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2016 at 23:09 | answer | added | user991 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 21:03 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | We haven't even shown that P!=NP. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 10:39 | answer | added | fkraiem | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 9:51 | comment | added | fkraiem | Also, indeed "conjectures that are introduced just so they can be used to prove stuff, and are not in anyway self-evident." are a real problem, which has been noticed by many researchers, such as Koblitz and Menezes in their (in)famous "Another Look" series of articles, but also by Goldwasser for example. But certainly the existence of one-way functions is not one, mostly because it is not only sufficient for much of cryptography, it is also necessary. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 9:39 | answer | added | Sergio A. Figueroa | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 6:12 | comment | added | fkraiem | The fact that CPA-secure symmetric encryption schemes exist if and only if one-way functions exist is not at all "obvious". | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 3:57 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/707414973811662848 | ||
| Mar 8, 2016 at 21:41 | answer | added | Mike Ounsworth | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 21:34 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | NP-completeness wouldn't help since it's unproven that this is distinct from P. By the way, there are cryptographic algorithms that are based on NP-complete problems, but they're too slow in practice and there's no reason to think they'd be more robust than other constructions. | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 21:33 | history | edited | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 8, 2016 at 20:40 | history | migrated | from security.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 6, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Rarely are there fields of mathematics devoted to teasing information out of structures explicitly chosen for their difficulty of teasing information out of | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 21:25 | comment | added | Christopher King | @CortAmmon rarely are entire fields of mathematics only conjecture. | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 21:22 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Why are you surprised that an algorithm is not mathematically proven? There are conjectures in mathematics that go for hundreds of years before they are proven. Others still remain yet unproven. And those are conjectures that were not intentionally trying to make the information as difficult to get at as possible. | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 13:40 | comment | added | Christopher King | @Mok-KongShen Okay, a few things have been proven, but not many. | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 12:23 | comment | added | Mok-Kong Shen | Why do you think that the proof of the information security of an (ideal) OTP isn't satisfactory? | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 6:48 | comment | added | user991 | Since two people have brought up the quoting issue, I suppose I can be clear: In my previous comment here, "in our algorithms" was quoted from the OP. | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 2:39 | comment | added | Christopher King | @RickyDemer Both | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 2:06 | comment | added | user991 | For "in our algorithms", are you just referring to protocols, or also non-interactive algorithms? (eg. Kerberos/SSH/SSL vs. MD5/SHA1/SFLASH) | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 1:55 | history | asked | Christopher King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |