Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #529018 > unrolled thread

A basis for all cryptography

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A basis for all cryptography Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 19:21 -0500
    Re: A basis for all cryptography benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 21:39 -0400
      Re: A basis for all cryptography xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 21:03 -0700
    Re: A basis for all cryptography gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-29 21:07 -0500
      Re: A basis for all cryptography Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:31 +0000
        Re: A basis for all cryptography xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 21:10 -0700
          Re: A basis for all cryptography Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 04:43 +0000
            Re: A basis for all cryptography xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 00:07 -0700
    Re: A basis for all cryptography jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 05:21 +0000
      Re: A basis for all cryptography Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:09 -0500
        Re: A basis for all cryptography jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:05 +0000

#529018 — A basis for all cryptography

A basis for all cryptography
> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms

> Last week, at the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
> MIT researchers showed that the problem of indistinguishability
> obfuscation is, in fact, a variation on a different cryptographic
> problem, called efficient functional encryption. And while computer
> scientists don't know how to do efficient functional encryption,
> either, they believe that they're close—much closer than they thought
> they were to indistinguishability obfuscation.
>
> "This thing has really been studied for a longer time than
> obfuscation, and we've had a very nice progression of results
> achieving better and better functional-encryption schemes," says Nir
> Bitansky, a postdoc in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial
> Intelligence Laboratory who wrote the conference paper together with
> Vinod Vaikuntanathan, an associate professor of electrical
> engineering and computer science. "People thought this is a small
> gap. Obfuscation—that's another dimension. It's much more powerful.
> There's a huge gap there. What we did was really narrow this gap. Now
> if you want to do obfuscation and get all of crypto, everything that
> you can imagine, from standard assumptions, all that you have to do
> is solve this very specific problem, making functional encryption
> just a little bit more efficient."
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#529046

On 10/29/2015 08:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> A basis for all cryptography
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms
>
>> Last week, at the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
>> MIT researchers showed that the problem of indistinguishability
>> obfuscation is, in fact, a variation on a different cryptographic
>> problem, called efficient functional encryption. And while computer
>> scientists don't know how to do efficient functional encryption,
>> either, they believe that they're close—much closer than they thought
>> they were to indistinguishability obfuscation.
>>
>> "This thing has really been studied for a longer time than
>> obfuscation, and we've had a very nice progression of results
>> achieving better and better functional-encryption schemes," says Nir
>> Bitansky, a postdoc in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial
>> Intelligence Laboratory who wrote the conference paper together with
>> Vinod Vaikuntanathan, an associate professor of electrical
>> engineering and computer science. "People thought this is a small
>> gap. Obfuscation—that's another dimension. It's much more powerful.
>> There's a huge gap there. What we did was really narrow this gap. Now
>> if you want to do obfuscation and get all of crypto, everything that
>> you can imagine, from standard assumptions, all that you have to do
>> is solve this very specific problem, making functional encryption
>> just a little bit more efficient."
>>
>
Gosh Sammy, so the "gap between  indistinguishability obfuscation
and efficient functional encryption is narrowing! Whoopee! Sam does this 
word salad of nonsense mean anything to you? I'm sure it does not. If 
you had ANY idea what they are talking about you could discuss it as 
requried by the charter of the group. We know that is NEVER going to 
happen, And you a math major too! Tsk tsk.


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529075

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:39:28 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 08:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > A basis for all cryptography
> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms
> >
> >> Last week, at the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
> >> MIT researchers showed that the problem of indistinguishability
> >> obfuscation is, in fact, a variation on a different cryptographic
> >> problem, called efficient functional encryption. And while computer
> >> scientists don't know how to do efficient functional encryption,
> >> either, they believe that they're close--much closer than they thought
> >> they were to indistinguishability obfuscation.
> >>
> >> "This thing has really been studied for a longer time than
> >> obfuscation, and we've had a very nice progression of results
> >> achieving better and better functional-encryption schemes," says Nir
> >> Bitansky, a postdoc in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial
> >> Intelligence Laboratory who wrote the conference paper together with
> >> Vinod Vaikuntanathan, an associate professor of electrical
> >> engineering and computer science. "People thought this is a small
> >> gap. Obfuscation--that's another dimension. It's much more powerful.
> >> There's a huge gap there. What we did was really narrow this gap. Now
> >> if you want to do obfuscation and get all of crypto, everything that
> >> you can imagine, from standard assumptions, all that you have to do
> >> is solve this very specific problem, making functional encryption
> >> just a little bit more efficient."
> >>
> >
> Gosh Sammy, so the "gap between  indistinguishability obfuscation
> and efficient functional encryption is narrowing! Whoopee! Sam does this 
> word salad of nonsense mean anything to you? I'm sure it does not. If 
> you had ANY idea what they are talking about you could discuss it as 
> requried by the charter of the group. We know that is NEVER going to 
> happen, And you a math major too! Tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> -- 
>          ___           ___           ___            ___
>         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
>        /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
>       /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
>      /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
>     /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
>     \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
>      \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
>       \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
>        \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
>                       \/__/         \/__/

xxein:  Discuss it with who?  Are you qualified and prepared to discuss it?  And why ask Sam?  He provided a link to the source for the subject.  Wouldn't you prefer to discuss it with the authors rather than second hand?

As far as I know, I am the only person who knows what gravity IS.  Would you like to discuss what gravity is?  Tell me what you know about it and I can start by telling you that you are 95% wrong.  Furthermore, how do intend to discuss it when you are so ignorant of it?

Maybe you can list the subjects that YOU are proficient in and we can make this group focus on that.  Hmm.  Let's see now.  How to use discussion space with computer artwork?  How about a complaint and rudeness seminar?  I guess not. That is not in the charter, is it?

Well.  Gravity it is then.  You start.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529057

On 10/29/2015 7:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> A basis for all cryptography
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms
>


<snip FatAssInACubeMakingStuffUp@phys.org>

fatass did not read the paper, its totally different;
(there is no summery! so it may not have been fully reviewed yet)




Indistinguishability Obfuscation from Functional Encryption

Nir Bitanskyy Vinod Vaikuntanathanz


Abstract

Indistinguishability obfuscation (IO) is a tremendous notion, powerful 
enough to give rise to almost any known cryptographic object. So far, 
candidate IO constructions were based on specific assumptions on 
algebraic objects called multi-linear graded encodings. We present a 
generic construction of indistinguishability obfuscation from public-key 
functional encryption with succinct ciphertexts and sub-exponential 
security. This shows the equivalence of indistinguishability obfuscation 
and public-key functional encryption, a primitive that has so far seemed 
to be much weaker, lacking the power and the staggering range of 
applications of indistinguishability
obfuscation.

As an application, we obtain a new candidate IO construction based on 
the functional encryption scheme of Garg, Gentry, Halevi, and Zhandry 
[Eprint 14] under their assumptions on multi-linear graded encodings. We 
also show that, under the Learning with Errors assumptions, our 
techniques imply that any indistinguishability obfuscator can be 
converted to one where obfuscated circuits are of linear size in the 
size of the original circuit plus a polynomial overhead in its depth. 
Our reduction highlights the importance of ciphertext succinctness in 
functional encryption schemes, which we hope will serve as a pathway to 
new IO constructions based on solid cryptographic
foundations.


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529064

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:07:57 -0500, gilber34 wrote:

> 
> <snip FatAssInACubeMakingStuffUp@phys.org>
> 
> fatass did not read the paper, its totally different;
> (there is no summery! so it may not have been fully reviewed yet)
> 

This stuff has no application in physics.  None.  Nada.  Zip.

Physicists use randomness for things like Monte Carlo simulations.
In such cases any source of randomness is sufficient.

This posting does not belong here and the fault is entirely with
the original poster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529076

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 10:31:30 PM UTC-4, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:07:57 -0500, gilber34 wrote:
> 
> > 
> > <snip FatAssInACubeMakingStuffUp@phys.org>
> > 
> > fatass did not read the paper, its totally different;
> > (there is no summery! so it may not have been fully reviewed yet)
> > 
> 
> This stuff has no application in physics.  None.  Nada.  Zip.
> 
> Physicists use randomness for things like Monte Carlo simulations.
> In such cases any source of randomness is sufficient.
> 
> This posting does not belong here and the fault is entirely with
> the original poster.

xxein:  Without Sam, you idiots would have nothing to talk about, would you?  Go ahead.  Introduce a physics subject that YOU are qualified to talk about.

Just remember though.  You will be discussing it with the all spamming shitheads you complain about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529078

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:10:47 -0700, xxein1 wrote:

>
> Go ahead.  Introduce a physics subject that YOU are qualified to talk about.
>

I just did, you disgusting ignoramus asshole.

It's called the Monte Carlo methodology and it shifts a thoroughly
inappropriate topic into one that is highly suitable for physics.

I think, you idiotic turd-brain, that you may have completely missed
the point.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529096

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:43:48 AM UTC-4, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:10:47 -0700, xxein1 wrote:
> 
> >
> > Go ahead.  Introduce a physics subject that YOU are qualified to talk about.
> >
> 
> I just did, you disgusting ignoramus asshole.
> 
> It's called the Monte Carlo methodology and it shifts a thoroughly
> inappropriate topic into one that is highly suitable for physics.
> 
> I think, you idiotic turd-brain, that you may have completely missed
> the point.

xxein:  I thought you brought it up as a complaint rather than wanting to actually discuss it.  I don't have a degree in randomness.  There is no true randomness but we can be philosophical about it.

Let's start with my favorite thought.  If there is no end, why should there have been a beginning?  Link that to entropy and we find that entropy can only exist in closed systems.  Overall there is still an order but the order changes with time.  Nothing (no thing) ceases to exist except in form.  This change is not random but is rather an order in itself.  Creation and annihilation do not exist.  Compare to the thought of an eternal god.

In the so-called entropy that we are aware of, we are also aware that degenentropy can take place.  In an ideally closed system we realize that restrictions apply such that a given energy/matter total will not change.  And although the combinations seem limitless, if we hold to a discreteness of things, only a certain set of combinations and permutation apply within that space.  That said, we are becoming aware that matter is only energy in a lumpy form.  That lumpy form is the result of discrete laws due to the properties of energy.  Once you have discrete laws, it places limits on activity to form in a timely way.

In an unbounded space, almost by definition, an apparent randomness can occur.  But because there are laws governing behavior, a true randomness cannot occur.  An apparent example of this is gravity but that in itself requires an internal pressure and lumpy energy.  Otoh, even though space can be limitless, until energy reaches a limit in an empty space, it will have an internal pressure.

So even if there were a true randomness, we would still have no means to use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529092

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> A basis for all cryptography

Off topic for this group.

>> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms

A RSS feed is available; no need for a cut and paste.

>> Last week, at the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,

The IEEE is an engineering organization.


>> MIT researchers showed that the problem of indistinguishability
>> obfuscation is, in fact, a variation on a different cryptographic
>> problem, called efficient functional encryption. And while computer
>> scientists don't know how to do efficient functional encryption,
>> either, they believe that they're close?much closer than they thought
>> they were to indistinguishability obfuscation.
>>
>> "This thing has really been studied for a longer time than
>> obfuscation, and we've had a very nice progression of results
>> achieving better and better functional-encryption schemes," says Nir
>> Bitansky, a postdoc in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial
>> Intelligence Laboratory who wrote the conference paper together with
>> Vinod Vaikuntanathan, an associate professor of electrical
>> engineering and computer science. "People thought this is a small
>> gap. Obfuscation?that's another dimension. It's much more powerful.
>> There's a huge gap there. What we did was really narrow this gap. Now
>> if you want to do obfuscation and get all of crypto, everything that
>> you can imagine, from standard assumptions, all that you have to do
>> is solve this very specific problem, making functional encryption
>> just a little bit more efficient."
>>
> 

Where is your discussion you claim to embrace, spamming shit head?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529112

On 10/30/15 12:21 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Where is your discussion you claim to embrace, spamming shit head?


   The poor jump is having trouble finding people to discuss stuff with
   him. Maybe it's his breath, or his bullying or inappropriate language.
   He huffs and puffs, with no progress.

   Name callers like jimp, can greatly benefit from these anger
   management classes.
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes

A basis for all cryptography
 > http://phys.org/news/2015-10-basis-cryptography.html#ms

 > Last week, at the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
 > MIT researchers showed that the problem of indistinguishability
 > obfuscation is, in fact, a variation on a different cryptographic
 > problem, called efficient functional encryption. And while computer
 > scientists don't know how to do efficient functional encryption,
 > either, they believe that they're close—much closer than they thought
 > they were to indistinguishability obfuscation.
 >
 > "This thing has really been studied for a longer time than
 > obfuscation, and we've had a very nice progression of results
 > achieving better and better functional-encryption schemes," says Nir
 > Bitansky, a postdoc in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial
 > Intelligence Laboratory who wrote the conference paper together with
 > Vinod Vaikuntanathan, an associate professor of electrical
 > engineering and computer science. "People thought this is a small
 > gap. Obfuscation—that's another dimension. It's much more powerful.
 > There's a huge gap there. What we did was really narrow this gap. Now
 > if you want to do obfuscation and get all of crypto, everything that
 > you can imagine, from standard assumptions, all that you have to do
 > is solve this very specific problem, making functional encryption
 > just a little bit more efficient."
 >


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529159

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/15 12:21 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Where is your discussion you claim to embrace, spamming shit head?
> 
> 
>   The poor jump is having trouble finding people to discuss stuff with

The shit head is in a tizzy as no one is interested in discussing his
cut and pastes, not even the shit head himself.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web