True encryption does exist, it’s just that the encryption key is equally as long as the message itself which shows how impractical it is: if you have a method secure enough to send an encryption key of length X, why not just send the actual message of length X?
Comment on Mathematician warns NSA may be weakening next-gen encryption
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
There is no such thing as unbreakable encryption. If you want to hide a message, hide it at the source with the way you phrase things. I still have to buy weed illegally, and I use Signal, but I don’t tell the person I buy it from, “hey, I want a half-ounce of weed and I’ll pick it up on Friday at 2 pm,” I say something like, “hey, are you free this weekend?” And then they’ll say something like, “yeah, do you want to get your usual thing?” and then we’ll arrange a time.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 11 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that before. Do you have more information I can read about somewhere?
Axel_Fl@lemmy.world 11 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Is that what they’re talking about?
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
…there very much is practically unbreakable encryption. We use those every day (it’s part of the s in https).
And your example is just a very rudimentary form of encryption that is far far weaker than the typical encryption methods used on the internet today.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s unbreakable until it isn’t.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
I think you vastly underestimate modern encryption. I would recommend looking up concepts and math from encryption, it makes more sense for why thinking that practically unbreakable encryption is very much possible once you do.
It’s why governments want to implement back-doors, because they are not actually capable of breaking it more directly.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Did you not read the article? It has nothing to do with backdoors.
Case@lemmynsfw.com 11 months ago
As my grandfather was wont to say, locks are for honest people.
Most forms of security are theater and used as a deterrent.
If your door is locked, and your neighbors isn’t, well your lock deterred them.
Then again, if someone means you in particular harm, they’ll get in, bricks are cheap and most home windows are focused on limiting thermal transfer, not being overly durable (say under an attack). It may not be quiet, you may be able to defend yourself or run or whatever, but the lock was not a deterrent.
So yes, lock your doors, encrypt everything you can, keep devices updated, etc. But it won’t stop a determined bad actor if they have reasonable capabilities to do you harm.
The problem with security, especially cyber security, is that you have to find a medium between secure and usable. Most companies, in my experience, tend to loosen security in the name of usability.
I’m not an expert, but I’m studying in that direction with my limited free time (and more to the point, energy and mental health)
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
True, and a good social engineering hack will get you wonders quite often.
BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 11 months ago
Defi crypto users didn’t like that.