You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Special Conjecture “Unbreakable Encryption”: John Nash's Letter to the NSA
the described method appears to be very similar to an XOR pad, which is known to be the most secure form of encryption. The problem is that it requires exchanging keys via means that also need to be secured, and likely the key exchange mechanism is the weakest link.
however if you have a physical device with a large number of high entropy bits, make two copies of this, then it can be used for highly secure communications of up to the length of the high entropy bits. I am pretty sure this is exactly what is used in the highest security areas
Thanks so much for even that! How would it feel if this came to you in a flash in 1955 when you were in your early 20's?
Also if I do know you from another forum, I know you to be sincere and knowledgeable on the subject of crypto-graphy and the related content. I would ask you if you are saying that even though Nash thought his design to be unbreakable, would you argue with such a mind that he is wrong? Perhaps our science out grow his understanding from back then so its not so much for you to suggest he was wrong, but we can take this a little further: Even if he KNEW his design WAS breakable, does the way he went about these letters not still allow the suggestion of such a design serve its purpose?
In other words he wasn't excited because his design was unbreakable, he was excited because of the implications of the realization that eventually encryption becomes EFFECTIVELY unbreakable. So regardless I think his excitement is both warranted, and not well understood even today.
Like he writes it is only breakable via bruteforcing 2^N combinations, which at big N is not practical
but his ambivalence was that he couldnt prove that it cant be found, as indeed it is possible to simply guess the right private key on the first try! Of course, many billions of years can go by without finding it either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
Ah right, you explain that well to me thx!