On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 12.07.2015 um 23:30 schrieb Rich Freeman: >> Impossible is a pretty bold claim. You need proof, not evidence that >> a particular recovery technique didn't work. I can demonstrate very >> clearly that I'm unable to crack DES, but that doesn't make it secure. >> > > they gave you the prove. Others have found the same. If you are unable > to understand what they wrote, just say so. >
By all means point out more specifically where you think they made a theoretical argument. I see lots of talk of measurements and lots of empirical-looking numbers. Theoretical arguments tend to involve lots of h-bars over pis and such. As far as others finding the same goes, that also tends to characterize this as an experimental/practical argument. You generally don't tend to have publications of reproductions of theoretical arguments since about all you can do is either point out an error in the math or extend it. Such experiments are useful, but they're not airtight. It is the difference between AES and a one-time pad. The former has no known method of circumvention and seems really hard to attack, the latter is theoretically impossible to attack if correctly implemented, but probably impossible to truly implement correctly. I don't worry about using AES, but I'm not under any illusions that it is completely unbreakable. -- Rich
