Hack this bitches

2008-10-09 14:14:40

#1

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6953|so randum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7661311.stm

BBC wrote:
Perfect secrecy has come a step closer with the launch of the world's first computer network protected by unbreakable quantum encryption at a scientific conference in Vienna.

The network connects six locations across Vienna and in the nearby town of St Poelten, using 200 km of standard commercial fibre optic cables.

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45093000/jpg/_45093045_-2.jpg

BBC wrote:
The basic idea of quantum cryptography was worked out 25 years ago by Charles Bennett of IBM and Gilles Brassard of Montreal University, who was in Vienna to see the network in action.

"All quantum security schemes are based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, on the fact that you cannot measure quantum information without disturbing it," he explained.

"Because of that, one can have a communications channel between two users on which it's impossible to eavesdrop without creating a disturbance. An eavesdropper would create a mark on it. That was the key idea."

In practice this means using the ultimate quantum objects: photons, the atoms of light. Incredibly faint beams of light equating to single photons fired a million times a second raced between the nodes in the Vienna network.

Physically, it's totally sound. Sweeet

Last edited by FatherTed (2008-10-09 14:15:20)

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-10-09 14:21:54

#2

Cyrax-Sektor: Official Battlefield fanboy; +240|6601|San Antonio, Texas

If there's a will, there's a way. Somebody's going to find out how to break it. They always do.

OT: Too many shaking Hitlers for avatars, it's confoosing.

2008-10-09 14:34:17

#3

The#1Spot: Member; +105|6993|byah

If the info is valuable enough someone or a group of people will hack it.

2008-10-09 14:36:09

#4

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7209|Scotland

Cyrax-Sektor wrote:
If there's a will, there's a way. Somebody's going to find out how to break it. They always do.

OT: Too many shaking Hitlers for avatars, it's confoosing.

They would have to prove Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle wrong for that to happen.

2008-10-09 14:40:21

#5

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6650|Winland

1: Get into a central
2: Attach light sensor hooked up to a computer
3: Read data
4: Decrypt data afterwards
5: Done.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-10-09 14:43:45

#6

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7263|Nårvei

Freezer7Pro wrote:
1: Get into a central
2: Attach light sensor hooked up to a computer
3: Read data
4: Decrypt data afterwards
4,5: Wait 375 years for the superduperawsm codebreaking machine to decrypt the data
5: Done.

Fixed

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-10-09 14:44:08

#7

mikkel: Member; +383|7054

I have a hard time seeing how this would be usable on a broad scale. If the encryption exists in the optical signalling, then all you're getting is effective encryption on point-to-point optical links, which is not where people would eavesdrop in the first place. Eavesdropping happens either in networking equipment by mirroring a data stream to another output while the data is being processed and routed, or on a multiple access medium, where data is inherently shared, and quantum encryption in the optical carrier would be useless, if at all possible.

Either I'm missing something, or this is just a proof of concept with no real implications derived from the implementation.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-10-09 14:44:34)

2008-10-09 14:44:22

#8

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7074|London, England

2008-10-09 14:45:18

#9

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7219|Cambridge (UK)

Freezer7Pro wrote:
1: Get into a central
2: Attach light sensor hooked up to a computer
3: Read data
4: Decrypt data afterwards
5: Done.

The act of reading the data changes the data and you get noticed snooping.

2008-10-09 14:45:52

#10

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7160|67.222.138.85

Freezer7Pro wrote:
1: Get into a central
2: Attach light sensor hooked up to a computer
3: Read data
4: Decrypt data afterwards
5: Done.

Measuring the light with the sensor effects the transmission in a measurable way.

What I don't think people understand about this is that it does not make an unbreakable code, it only makes sure that no one else is intercepting the somewhere along the line. The code on either side is very much crackable, and the only option when you know someone is listening in is to break the connection.

2008-10-09 14:46:38

#11

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6900|Chicago, IL

mikkel wrote:
I have a hard time seeing how this would be usable on a broad scale. If the encryption exists in the optical signalling, then all you're getting is effective encryption on point-to-point optical links, which is not where people would eavesdrop in the first place. Eavesdropping happens either in networking equipment by mirroring a data stream to another output while the data is being processed and routed, or on a multiple access medium, where data is inherently shared, and quantum encryption in the optical carrier would be useless, if at all possible.

Either I'm missing something, or this is just a proof of concept with no real implications derived from the implementation.

this is what I was thinking, it is not possible to measure the quantum state of a photon without altering it's course, but it is also difficult to send a photon across the world with any sort of accuracy

2008-10-09 14:49:40

#12

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7160|67.222.138.85

S.Lythberg wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I have a hard time seeing how this would be usable on a broad scale. If the encryption exists in the optical signalling, then all you're getting is effective encryption on point-to-point optical links, which is not where people would eavesdrop in the first place. Eavesdropping happens either in networking equipment by mirroring a data stream to another output while the data is being processed and routed, or on a multiple access medium, where data is inherently shared, and quantum encryption in the optical carrier would be useless, if at all possible.

Either I'm missing something, or this is just a proof of concept with no real implications derived from the implementation.
this is what I was thinking, it is not possible to measure the quantum state of a photon without altering it's course, but it is also difficult to send a photon across the world with any sort of accuracy

He's not talking about the technical difficulties, he's talking about the misunderstanding people have about it that I mentioned in my post. This only makes sure that data is transmitted securely, but as he said most people aren't looking to get to the data between point A and B, they're looking to get at either point A or point B.

2008-10-09 14:52:07

#13

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6900|Chicago, IL

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I have a hard time seeing how this would be usable on a broad scale. If the encryption exists in the optical signalling, then all you're getting is effective encryption on point-to-point optical links, which is not where people would eavesdrop in the first place. Eavesdropping happens either in networking equipment by mirroring a data stream to another output while the data is being processed and routed, or on a multiple access medium, where data is inherently shared, and quantum encryption in the optical carrier would be useless, if at all possible.

Either I'm missing something, or this is just a proof of concept with no real implications derived from the implementation.
this is what I was thinking, it is not possible to measure the quantum state of a photon without altering it's course, but it is also difficult to send a photon across the world with any sort of accuracy
He's not talking about the technical difficulties, he's talking about the misunderstanding people have about it that I mentioned in my post. This only makes sure that data is transmitted securely, but as he said most people aren't looking to get to the data between point A and B, they're looking to get at either point A or point B.

That's what I meant, that unless point a and point b are placed a significant distance apart, there is little use for such a system, as it can't protect data moving through a network.

2008-10-09 14:55:54

#14

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7219|Cambridge (UK)

S.Lythberg wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:

this is what I was thinking, it is not possible to measure the quantum state of a photon without altering it's course, but it is also difficult to send a photon across the world with any sort of accuracy
He's not talking about the technical difficulties, he's talking about the misunderstanding people have about it that I mentioned in my post. This only makes sure that data is transmitted securely, but as he said most people aren't looking to get to the data between point A and B, they're looking to get at either point A or point B.
That's what I meant, that unless point a and point b are placed a significant distance apart, there is little use for such a system, as it can't protect data moving through a network.

The 'big use' that makes it all worthwhile is banking - they already have bank-to-bank 'secure' connections - but at the moment these are either standard fibre or copper - so can be snooped easily.

2008-10-09 15:36:25

#15

Kurazoo: Pheasant Plucker; +440|7138|West Yorkshire, U.K

done.

2008-10-09 15:37:32

#16

mikkel: Member; +383|7054

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

He's not talking about the technical difficulties, he's talking about the misunderstanding people have about it that I mentioned in my post. This only makes sure that data is transmitted securely, but as he said most people aren't looking to get to the data between point A and B, they're looking to get at either point A or point B.
That's what I meant, that unless point a and point b are placed a significant distance apart, there is little use for such a system, as it can't protect data moving through a network.
The 'big use' that makes it all worthwhile is banking - they already have bank-to-bank 'secure' connections - but at the moment these are either standard fibre or copper - so can be snooped easily.

Traffic is easily snooped on copper, but that isn't relevant to the article. Optical fibre, however, requires you to splice an optical split onto the physical fibre, creating downtime on the line, which would alert the operators, and significantly worsen the optical attenuation, which is something that would be closely monitored in operations where physical link integrity is of importance. Even in a scenario where point-to-point optical links could be reliably snooped without leaving evidence, the very few niches where it would be economically feasible to implement aren't really enough to make this a significant breakthrough.

On the other hand, most any transparent security measure is a good thing.

2008-10-09 15:41:51

#17

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|7021|NYC / Hamburg

The great advantage here is that the ISP / government can't see what you're up to. For private persons / corporations it's already near impossible to monitor traffic on networks they aren't physically (or wireless I suppose) connected to.

Obviously that doesn't stop the problem of people tapping into your lan or that of malware.

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2008-10-09 15:42:59

#18

100% Irishpride: Banned; +81|6613|Dublin

Looks big and deadly, U reckon it would play BF2 on high?

2008-10-09 15:56:36

#19

mikkel: Member; +383|7054

max wrote:
The great advantage here is that the ISP / government can't see what you're up to.

Of course they can. Purely optical routing isn't likely to ever happen, meaning that every time your data requires routing, you get an optical-electical-optical conversion, defeating the security of carrier wave encryption.

2008-10-09 16:00:19

#20

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|7021|NYC / Hamburg

mikkel wrote:
max wrote:
The great advantage here is that the ISP / government can't see what you're up to.
Of course they can. Purely optical routing isn't likely to ever happen, meaning that every time your data requires routing, you get an optical-electical-optical conversion, defeating the security of carrier wave encryption.

didn't think of that. Stupid me

Oh well, still holds true for those optical links that connect 2 buildings across public property together.

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2008-10-09 16:56:22

#21

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6845|Southern California

100% Irishpride wrote:
Looks big and deadly, U reckon it would play BF2 on high?

Yes, my cellphone plays BF2 on high.

2008-10-09 17:12:39

#22

JoshP: Banned; +176|6142|Notts, UK

/facepalm , while the data is being transmitted in optical form, it is in the form of individual photons, and merely by observing it, you basically fuck it up completely, and change it, so it's impossible to snoop on the signal. The only feasible way, as previously mentioned, is to gain access to one of the computers at the other ends and do it from there

basically l2physics

2008-10-09 17:24:00

#23

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|7192|Comber, Northern Ireland

"moved to nerd only section"

2008-10-09 17:35:08

#24

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6606|what

It would have been exactly the same had they used an ordinary laser\light beam. You look at it and some of the light has to be redirected away from the destination. It's not possible to not disturb the light and read it at the same time. (and looking at it from side on doesn't work cause the data is not sent in that direction )

Still it's cool that to break this signal successfully you have to break the laws of physics.

2008-10-09 17:54:13

#25

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7219|Cambridge (UK)

TheAussieReaper wrote:
Still it's cool that to break this signal successfully you have to break the laws of physics.

Actually, unless they've thought up a new way of doing it, this type of security is actually theoretically hackable, the difficulties involved though make it totally impractical.

Can't remember much of the detail of exactly how they can be theoretically hacked, but there was an article in New Scientist some time back about it.

BF2S Forums Hack this bitches

BBC wrote:

BBC wrote:

Cyrax-Sektor wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mikkel wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

mikkel wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

max wrote:

mikkel wrote:

max wrote:

100% Irishpride wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Board footer