On Jun 27, 2015 11:51 AM, "Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> writes: > > Furthermore you cannot prove a negative, which is what proving > > security is for anything but the trivial case. Are you saying this is > > untrue? > > I've always thought that there are no two even numbers that when you add > them together, give you an odd number. Are you saying that statement > can't be proven? > > > But how does one prove a system is secure except by enumerating attack > > vectors > > In the case of encryption, you do a reduction proof to a recognized > primitive like AES. That is, you show that if your system is breakable, > you can transform the break into a break against AES itself. That's the > best you can do at the moment, because the open status of the P!=NP > problem means that no one knows how to prove that any primitive (such as > AES) is secure. The reduction proof means that the evidence for AES's > security also applies to your system. > > Of course that's just for the cipher itself. For the entire surrounding > software/hardware/process system which is mostly not mathematical, > you're right, there's no way to (mathematically) prove security or even > to define it.
Ahh okay. So what he's referring to must be such reductions and proofs of these provable aspects, though he spoke very broadly.
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
