Fixxing Unbreakable Encryption, Only the exploitative cases Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Heath Robinson]

CODE

case 1:
    Bob encrypts his connection to Alice
    Eve initiates decryption on the Bob-Alice connection
    Bob drops the encryption removing Eve's progress
    Goto case 1

The problem here is, by it's very nature, down to the fact that a particular instance of the Encryption is cracked. Dropping the instance and replacing it resets all progress made. Cycling periodically renders nodes impossible to crack.

A solution is to change the Decrypt action to target the node itself instead of the encryption instance (but the action requires a visible instance of encryption that involves that node to work). Hits are maintained between attempts to decrypt different instances created by the node and once a particular instance has been cracked you have the keys for all encryption that node performs until an arbirary date in the future when sufficient new entropy for a fresh master key has been generated.


Quick, dirty, reasonable solution imo. Requesting Comment.

[Heath Robinson]

Mmm, but Frank's stuff at least states outright that it's taking fantastic liberties. The problem with the Matrix is that normal people are now familiar with something analogous to what it claims to emulate. To the point where they start going "oh, I know X" and then the rules turn around and say "oh, no, you don't". That's where the rage comes from - when you know things and the rules go off and actually contradict those things without making it sufficiently clear that the game isn't even trying to emulate the real world.

The Matrix should seriously be wordfiltered into nonsense terms for the sake of not misleading everybody.

[Malachi]

Mmm, but Frank's stuff at least states outright that it's taking fantastic liberties.

Except for the part where he goes on for pages about why encryption can't be hacked. That's what bothers me the most about Frank's rules. He goes on for blah blah blah about encryption, using technology capabilities from right now as his basis for argument, and then later gives Hackers the ability to affect circuitry that is OFF, at a range of Line of Sight, by manipulating the very electrons that may or may not be present in it, at the quantum level ("or something").... but faster decryption is way beyond suspension of disbelief... oh well.

[The Jake]

Isn't this why Unwired explicitly states all crypto is crackable? That sidebar allows for GMs to introduce uncrackable crypto as a special plot hook.

You have to assume the rules cover the process or you go mad.

Who is to say that computational speeds and heuristic analysis can't determine patterns in algorithm and key selection? Also for an eavesdropping attacker able to intercept the key exchange, things change dramatically.

Suspension of disbelief people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

- J.

[Heath Robinson]

Isn't this why Unwired explicitly states all crypto is crackable? That sidebar allows for GMs to introduce uncrackable crypto as a special plot hook.

You have to assume the rules cover the process or you go mad.

Who is to say that computational speeds and heuristic analysis can't determine patterns in algorithm and key selection? Also for an eavesdropping attacker able to intercept the key exchange, things change dramatically.

Suspension of disbelief people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Except that it's Malachi's argument that encryption that is fundamentally unbreakable today should magically become breakable tomorrow without the invention of an oracle. It's insane that the idea of unbreakable encryption (which exists today and is on Mathematically proven grounds) is apparently less believable than technology which allows you to induce the currents in a device within LOS in a consistant, reliable manner that lets you turn people off.


I forgot to mention that the unbreakability of an OTP is positively proven. It's not that no attacks currently exist for it, there are no attacks for it. The distinction is subtle but extremely important.

Why the Rant? It is just a game...

People are wrong. On the internet. They have no excuse because Wikipedia is just over there. And when you link them to a relevent article THEY IGNORE IT! I put a lot of work into learning shit so that I know where I can sensibly stand. It's offensive when someone refuses to put even a little bit of effort into understanding the area THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT. It's basic courtesy to know what the fuck you're spouting off about.

And this isn't even a game. This is someone arguing that the big believability problem he has with Frank's rules are that they use actual real encryption that has been positively proven unbreakable. That's like stating that the big believability problem you have with the SR4 rules are that pieces of metal flying through the air are still inimical to unprotected human lives.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Except that it's Malachi's argument that encryption that is fundamentally unbreakable today should magically become breakable tomorrow without the invention of an oracle. It's insane that the idea of unbreakable encryption (which exists today and is on Mathematically proven grounds) is apparently less believable than technology which allows you to induce the currents in a device within LOS in a consistant, reliable manner that lets you turn people off.


I forgot to mention that the unbreakability of an OTP is positively proven. It's not that no attacks currently exist for it, there are no attacks for it. The distinction is subtle but extremely important.


People are wrong. On the internet. They have no excuse because Wikipedia is just over there. And when you link them to a relevent article THEY IGNORE IT! I put a lot of work into learning shit so that I know where I can sensibly stand. It's offensive when someone refuses to put even a little bit of effort into understanding the area THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT. It's basic courtesy to know what the fuck you're spouting off about.

And this isn't even a game. This is someone arguing that the big believability problem he has with Frank's rules are that they use actual real encryption that has been positively proven unbreakable. That's like stating that the big believability problem you have with the SR4 rules are that pieces of metal flying through the air are still inimical to unprotected human lives.

Yes, things we prove factually now will never be disproved. Because we got the maths and science down pat this time. Because yeah like 60 years in a Science Fiction future they totally could never figure shit out that we thought was impossible. Malachi's point wasn't that in real life it would or should be breakable in the future, but that sometimes people invent shit and figure things out we never thought of and while its not a would its a could be possible, especially in a Fantasy game future. .