this post was submitted on
12 points (83% like it)
15 up votes 3 down votes
all 21 comments

[–]ninguem 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Elliptic curve cryptography.

[–]jan 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Authentication, Web of Trust vs Hierarchical Certificates

Practical security: How does your mom know, her banking is secure? What should the bank do, to make this easy for her? What do banks really do?

Show that Quantum Key Distribution is useless (or the opposite).

How comes most of your classmates, friends, professors have never sent or received an encrypted email? What the hell goes wrong? Don't they have any secrets, expectation of privacy?

Tor? Freenet? Wikileaks? Anonymous (hidden) networks? Connection with revolutions in the middle east?

Some history? WW2?

[–]Julian702 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dude, seriously... I do not understand why the average person isn't more concerned about digital privacy.

[–]industrialwaste 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you might want to crosspost this to /r/crypto

[–]AthierThanThou 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just slinging ideas here:

  • Can zero-knowledge proofs be used as an identity authentication factor? I.e., can you prove who you are without revealing possibly sensitive information about yourself that a third party man-in-the-middle could use to impersonate you?
  • Is the bitcoin algorithm secure? Does it really respect anonymity and non-repudiation? Can it be expanded so that one user can use multiple computers?
  • Speaking of non-repudiation, is that really possible to achieve? Is there some way to ensure that if I digitally sign something, there is at most an arbitrarily small chance that I could ever in the future plausibly say that "someone stole my key and/or password"?

[–]OlderThanGif 4 points5 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A practical fully homomorphic encryption system would blow my mind if it could be developed. This would allow computation to happen on ciphertext. E.g., you could upload your data, encrypted, to a compute server or cloud computing service or something like that and perform computations on it without ever having to decrypt it. Further, it couldn't be determined what computations you were actually doing.

There was a theoretical fully homomorphic encryption system developed using ideal lattices a while back, I remember, but it couldn't be used for practical use. I think I remember reading an interview with the author who said that if you were to try to apply it to something like performing a search on Google (where all the databases were encrypted), it would take decades or perhaps even centuries on modern computer hardware to complete a query.

[–]mdelaney 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with the impacts - though admit I have trouble understanding what it really means. Don't get me wrong, I saw Gentry present on overview of his work at RSA a few years back - but the implications of being able to do calculations on encrypted data makes me wonder how much of this is a matter a careful semantics.

The only example I can come up with immediately is perhaps something you'd want anyway: imagine uploaded encrypted data to a cloud computing service than having them do some type of check like a casting out a nines to look for possible signs of fraud / cooking the books. Now in doing so, aren't they extracting information from the data? And if so, doesn't that imply something about the underlying encryption? Given what papers imply about being able to piece together about someone's identity or shopping habits from anonymized data sets (e.g. the Netflix prize), doesn't this imply a trade-off on privacy vs. ease of offloading computing?

[–]OlderThanGif 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really because you're not doing the same computation that you'd do on unencrypted data. A fully homomorphic encryption system doesn't just describe transformations on the data, but transformations on the computations as well. Using Boolean circuits is typical, though in principle you could describe it using any sort of fundamental computation model.

A fully homomorphic encryption system describes how to transform structures gates into structures of other gates. Using your example of casting out nines, then, in the end you'd be left with a program which maybe doesn't do any additions at all, doesn't do any comparisons against 9, maybe doesn't even move row-by-row in any meaningful sense. The property that you're trying to preserve is that if you take a transformed program and run it on encrypted input to get encrypted output, that output, once decrypted, should be the same as if you'd run the untransformed program on the unencrypted input.

Also, this highlights the big problem in fully homomorphic encryption right now. Transforming data is easy. Transforming the programs that operate on that data, under current theory, explodes them into intractably complex programs, so complex that they're not at all useful for anything.

[–]mdelaney 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you for explaining that piece - someone had tried (I think) to describe that to me in the past, and based on your explanation a bit of a lightbulb went on.

I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the implications I think - but that is no doubt a post on its own.

At any rate - I would vote for homomorphic encryption, I think a paper on the topic would be very interesting.

[–]Cheesejaguar 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is a principle on which some cryptographic measures designed such that no computer with the theoretical maximum computing power the entire earth could ever break them using brute force. You could write a paper explaining the physics behind these, and why it's a good or a bad idea for a cryptographically secure design. You could argue either way.

Though seriously my dad works in cryptography... you should see some of the key sizes businesses use to protect important stuff. It's kind of a joke at that point. Cryptographic keys in the megabyte range.

[–]gimballock2 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

cryptocurrency see bitcoin

[–]ivosaurus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

quantum.

[–]spazzm 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Perhaps looking into the work done in proving lower bounds of the time complexity on factorising almost-prime integers?

[–]englishnomad 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For part of my mathematics degree, I talked briefly about the history of cryptography and then used Maple to program an algorithm to encrypt and decrypt using these ciphers.

I started with the basic Caesar Shift Cipher, then moved on to the Hill Cipher, and finally RSA.

[–]englishnomad 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also, the latest I've read about in the area of cryptography (though, I admit, it was only in passing - it is not my field) is quantum cryptography

[–]wootfish 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most of the stuff being suggested here is pretty cutting-edge and fun, but if you need something standard, I've always found cryptographic hash function design to be particularly stimulating.

[–]electronics-engineer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How about cryptographically strong systems that don't use computers? There have been several attempts with playing cards, pencil and paper, etc.

[–]mister_self_destruct 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Like Bruce Schneier's Solitare!

[–]bgbeuning 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Afterword by Matt Blaze (pages 619 to 621) in "Applied Cryptography" by Schneier lists some open topics.

My favorite open topic is "how do programs trust other programs without human intervention". For example, a web server has an SSL certificate and for security a certificate has a pass phrase. No one puts a pass phrase on a server cert because that means if the server reboots, someone needs to enter the pass phrase.

[–]mkawick 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just a few ideas.

Its an interesting branch of mathematics in the field of Modern Algebra.

AES is basically uncrackable. There's a nice little story about how the Brazillian authorities and the FBI tried to break the encryption of a hard drive and failed

Worth noting, some of the best encryption schemes are simple XOR hashes. (very fast, hard to decrypt by anyone except an expert) The mechanism is about as simple as it gets.

You might mention quantum encryption.

[–]B-Con 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

AES is basically uncrackable. There's a nice little story about how the Brazillian authorities and the FBI tried to break the encryption of a hard drive and failed

First, they didn't attack AES, they attacked the password. There was no fancy math involved.

Second, many algorithms have been "basically uncrackable", and then cracked. Give it another decade or so.