From: ec1828@somewhere.edu   
      
   Lawrence D'Oliveiro  writes:   
      
   > On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:19:00 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:   
      
   >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:25:23 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I get the feeling here that, by the same token, you could never have a   
   >>>> provably secure cryptosystem because someone knows the private key?   
   >>>   
   >>> None of our cryptosystems are provably secure.   
   >>   
   >> One example of provably secure system is the one-time pad.   
   >   
   > But it’s not. Where do you get the pad from? Proof of security of the   
   > system relies on proof of the randomness of the pad. Which takes us back   
   > to square one.   
      
   I think your ``square one'' is that no system is provably secure.   
   This denies the work of various thinkers who have written definitions   
   and proofs.  A proof is usually work of mathematical nature, not of   
   engineering nature.  Randomness is assumed in all of these proofs, so   
   there is not a single step in them that's flawed in any way.   
      
   So I think your position is that the assumption of randomness is not a   
   good idea.  You seem to rather prefer to assume that randomness   
   doesn't exist.  But that's just another assumption.  And it's not an   
   interesting one.  It destroys a lot of good work.   
      
   Why is randomness assumed?  We can't calculate without it.  For   
   instance, what's the probability of getting a 6 in a fair die?  It's   
   1/6.  But that's not true in your choice of assumptions because you   
   reject the assumption of randomness.  What do you get as a result?  I   
   think none---you wouldn't have a model to work with.   
      
   --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8---   
   --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8---   
      
   What about the practical world?  We have enough randomness to run the   
   entire world as it is currently done despite the accidents we've had   
   and could still have.  So I don't think it's a good idea to say that   
   we don't have provably secure systems because someone may have   
   criticisms with respect to the quality of random number generators: we   
   have various systems that satisfy the definition of provably secure.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)