Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cryptol, Language of Cryptography, Now Available To the Public

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the new-toys-to-play-with dept.

140

solweil writes to mention that Cryptol, a 'domain specific language for the design, implementation and verification of cryptographic algorithms,' is now available to the public. Cryptol was originally designed for the NSA. It allows for a quick evaluation and continued revisions, and is available for Linux, OS X, and Windows.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anonymous Coward. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236339)

First Post!

Re:Anonymous Coward. (0, Offtopic)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236353)

Second Post!

Re:Anonymous Coward. (-1, Troll)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236703)

First past the post!

Crack this! (2, Funny)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236375)

  41R5T 3N6RI27ED P057 !

Re:Crack this! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236395)

L053r

Re:Crack this! (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236397)

41R5T 3N6RI27ED P057 ! >>>> I AM 16 LOL!!1!1one1

Re:Crack this! (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237817)

H0+ 6RI72 ?

Re:Crack this! (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237947)

More like cryptLOL, amirite?

Re:Crack this! (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239147)

41R5T 3N6RI27ED P057

Airst Engrrted Post? Yup, that's definitely a good encryption scheme.

Kudos to NSA (5, Interesting)

rindeee (530084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236389)

Having worked at the Agency I must say that the quality of the 'product' that they turn over to the public domain is second to none (well, except for that which they keep for themselves of course). They take a lot of heat at a leadership level, some warranted, some not. In the end, the caliber of the engineers, security professionals and JPG (just plain geeks) that work there is second to none. From SEL to crypto bake-offs to the submitter's topic, they've done a helluva lot of good for the community. Thanks guys! Now if they could just get 'Weed Man' to open an omelet shop out in town, all would be right with the world (inside joke, sorry).

Re:Kudos to NSA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236441)

Thanks to the NSA, "Weed Man" isn't going to be opening any shops in any town.

We wiretapped his ass, and now we've decrypted the GPG emails he exchanged with his suppliers, we've got everything we need to lock him up for the rest of his life.

It will take decades and trillions of dollars, but someday, we'll have all of the Weed Men where they belong. IN JAIL.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236615)

Except for the ones in the white house.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237957)

C'mon, be fair. It's a Coke Man in the white house.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236527)

I'm sorry, but you never worked at the Agency, unless we're talking about Volt Services. Please do not misrepresent yourself.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237193)

FWIW, and for those whose interest was piqued by the parent post, (and note that I don't know anything about the GP's employment history), but I know that Volt Services is a staffing agency. They do a lot of IT contract placements to various government agencies, including NSA.

Basically, NSA employs a bunch of Ph.D's who layout all the theoretical work. They work with project managers who typically outsource all the coding.

I could tell you how I know all this, but I'd have to kill you. ;)

Re:Kudos to NSA (1, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26238237)

I have never worked at the agency, but I was once in an orgy with Bob, Eve, and Alice.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236595)

So, how DO you factor large semiprimes fast?

Re:Kudos to NSA (5, Funny)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236621)

That "M+" button on your calculator that no-one knows how to use. That's what it does.

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237237)

I use that to store "5318008" in memory so I always have one on hand.

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26238339)

Is there anything that little button can't do? I have a feeling "M+" stands for "More magic".

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237203)

So, how DO you factor large semiprimes fast?

can someone explain why this is hard to do? It seems like a straghtforward process since the number of primes is essentially fixed. (there are quite a few of them but we keep hearing announcements about a new ONE being found, so there can't be that many of them that are known, someone's got a book I'm sure)

Just a matter of looping through all known primes, seeing if x divides by it. That's order 1 since the number of primes is "fixed". If you don't find anything it divides by, it's a new prime (add it to your list) or its smallest factor is larger than your biggest known prime. Otherwise remember that factor, and start working on the dividend.

Why is this always considered such a hard thing to do? It looks like something that should go quick.

Heck with modern day processors I'd imagine you could fab a specialized chip that determines which of the "known primes" the provided number has as one of its divisors as a one-step (parallel) operation. Just hardcode it to those primes.

Re:Kudos to NSA (4, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237329)

There are infinitely many prime numbers. [wikipedia.org]

The oldest known proof for the statement that there are infinitely many prime numbers is given by the Greek mathematician Euclid in his Elements (Book IX, Proposition 20). Euclid states the result as "there are more than any given [finite] number of primes", and his proof is essentially the following:

Consider any finite set of primes. Multiply all of them together and add 1 (see Euclid number). The resulting number is not divisible by any of the primes in the finite set we considered, because dividing by any of these would give a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes, then either this resultant number is prime itself, or there is a prime number or prime numbers which the resultant number could be decomposed into but are not in the original finite set of primes. Either way, there is at least one more prime that was not in the finite set we started with. This argument applies no matter what finite set we began with. So there are more primes than any given finite number.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237485)

I don't get how this is true; "or there is a prime number or prime numbers which the resultant number could be decomposed into but are not in the original finite set of primes." What's the proof for that statement?

Re:Kudos to NSA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237567)

That's from the definition of a prime number. Take any natural number N. Either (1) N is prime, or (2) N is divisible by a prime number (it's not prime, i.e. it's composite: the product of two or more prime numbers).

Euclid is using this fact to show that the original finite set does not contain all primes, because either that original set did not contain N, or it did not contain a prime factor of N. Hence, no matter how many primes you find, there will always be more primes.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237575)

It follows from the prime decomposition theorem -- that every number is a product of primes. (Or, more-or-less equivalently, Euclid's algorithm)

The proof is essentially a "counting proof". Collect any finite list of primes, and one can construct a number that is not divisble by any of them.

For example, if p_1 ... p_n are prime, N = (p_1 x ... x p_n) + 1 isn't divisble by any of them. Which means that it is prime, or there is a prime number (that isn't in the list) that does divide your new number N.

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26238159)

Start with a small set to see the logic if you need to.

Say just (2, 3, and 5). All prime numbers.

Now the product of 2, 3, and 5 is 30. Add 1 to this and you get 31.

31 is not divisable by 2. The closest you can get to 31 in mulitples of two is 30 (which is 3 times 5 times... you guessed it 2.) and you have 1 left over.

31 is not divisable by 3. It's the same as 2. The closest you get is 30 (2 times 5 times... 3!) and you have 1 left over.

The same goes for 5. Because you are adding 1 to the product of all three, you can't divide into the result cleanly.

This is going to be the same for any group of prime numbers you pick. By adding 1 to their product, the result can't be broken down cleanly as a product of those numbers. You'll always be 1 away (because you actually took their product and added 1).

Now the definition of a prime number is a number that can only be cleanly divided by two numbers. Itself and 1. Every other number has more possible divisors. As a result of this, every number out there is either a prime, because you can't divide something into it, or a product of primes.

31 therefore is either a prime number itself, or it can be broken down into a product of prime numbers.

But we've shown that the prime numbers in our list can't be the primes that do that, since none of them can divide into our result cleanly.

That means, by default, our group of numbers can't contain all the prime numbers. Either they are missing our result (and btw, 31 is a prime) or they are missing the prime factors of our result. And since this works for any group of prime numbers you can put together, effectively you've just proven that the actual set of prime numbers itself is infinite.

Re:Kudos to NSA (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239705)

The GP said the number of primes is essentially fixed which is consistent with the number of primes being infinite, I suppose.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237331)

Part of the problem is that we don't have all of the primes. The primes you keep hearing about have properties like being a set of twin primes.

You can google prime generation and you'll find that the moethods are fairly slow to come up with 1, much less a whole range of them.

Re:Kudos to NSA (3, Interesting)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237411)

Interesting question. You always hear that it's because of "prime factorization" or something, and to tell the truth I hadn't thought about what that actually meant. The article on RSA at Wikipedia seems informative:

The RSA problem is defined as the task of taking eth roots modulo a composite n: recovering a value m such that c=me mod n, where (n, e) is an RSA public key and c is an RSA ciphertext.

Keep in mind these are typically 1024-bit (or more) numbers -- 2 ^ 1024 possible numbers to factor. Also, the world's record for factorization at the moment is for factoring a 668-bit number that took "several months of computer time using the combined power of 80 AMD Opteron CPUs. [wikipedia.org] "

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Informative)

pointsofdata (1320697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237425)

While I am no expert in the area, nor do I know a huge amount about mathematics, wikipedia says that there are:2,220,819,602,560,918,840 primes below 10^20, which is 20 digits long. Considering that the largest known prime is almost 13 million digits long,and most of these numbers are unimaginably vast, it appears that it is not trivial to find the prime factors of a number. For instance, If a computer can test 10 billion primes a second (which is more than a consumer grade computer can (I think)), then it would take ~2 billion seconds to go test all the primes from 2 to the 10^20. While this would be far faster on a supercomputer, if all primes up to 2^(43,112,609) â' 1 are taken into account, it is not hard to appreciate that this will take a huge amount of time.

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Informative)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237477)

It's not so hard to factor a 32-bit number with a 64-bit computer. It is very hard to efficiently factor a 2048-bit number with a 64-bit computer. Even if you had a list of all prime numbers that can be expressed in 2k or fewer bits, streaming all that data to your CPU would take a lot of bandwidth.

You're off on your orders there (4, Interesting)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237625)

Just a matter of looping through all known primes, seeing if x divides by it. That's order 1 since the number of primes is "fixed". If you don't find anything it divides by, it's a new prime (add it to your list) or its smallest factor is larger than your biggest known prime. Otherwise remember that factor, and start working on the dividend.

Check yourself there. It takes longer to perform division on larger numbers (say O(ln(N)^2), though a lot of this depends on the algorithm). If you plan to do the sieve of eratosthenes as you describe (the hard way), that's going to be another O(n*ln(ln(N)) for a total of O(n*ln(N)^2*ln(ln(n))) for each factor.

The sort of numbers you are thinking about when you say that testing via division is O(1) with hardware are 64 bit integers. The sort of semi-primes used in cryptography are on the order of 512 bits, and so (by the formula above) would take roughly 147, 184, 841, 669, 860, 395, 336, 238, 071, 097, 320, 918, 206, 612, 375, 539, 181, 907, 207, 001, 765, 334, 079, 455, 842, 963, 079, 473, 553, 687, 769, 537, 122, 026, 054, 410, 625, 268, 901, 031, 540, 756, 829, 794, 467, 840, 000 times as long.

So if your computer took a nanosecond to solve a 64 bit case (making it faster than the fastest consumer system presently available), and you had a million of them, and all 6 billion people on Earth were your friends, and each of them had a million of these uber boxes as well, and you had a way to collaborate on the problem with no overhead, it would still take you roughly 1, 920, 658, 729, 429, 876, 148, 289, 055, 386, 140, 718, 898, 913, 520, 422, 922, 263, 604, 244, 594, 006, 798, 154, 722, 944, 671, 495, 344, 450, 391, 916, 549, 249, 431, 238 times the age of the universe to factor one such number.

That's why nobody does it that way, and why it's considered a hard problem even though it might sound easy.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Kudos to NSA (2, Informative)

akaariai (921081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237763)

The short answer is that there is just too many primes to list. There is about x/log(x) prime numbers smaller than x. If you have a 512 bit number then you have about sqrt(2^512) / log(sqrt(2^512)) numbers to check. So, there is 1.5 * 10^75 numbers you need to list. This is simply impossible. Moore's law will not help here, as adding one bit to the number to check about doubles the search space. That is, after a year of you can check a number that is just one bit larger!

Re:Kudos to Galois (3, Interesting)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236695)

Clarification:

Cryptol, as I understand it, was developed by Galois [galois.com] (who, for some reason, is not mentioned in the summary) and not by the NSA. It would be interesting to know whether it was a joint decision between Galois and the NSA to release cryptol, or just Galois' decision alone.

Re:Kudos to Galois (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237607)

Galois does high assurance computation for the NSA, and others. (Which is to say, the NSA expects Galois to do theorem proving on their code)

Does anybody have any good information about Cryptol? Is it a Haskell subset/extension? Most of what I know about Galois is in relation to Haskell.

Re:Kudos to Galois (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237875)

There's some documentation [galois.com] on Galois' web page. I looked at it once awhile back, and it seemed a lot like Haskell, but with extra syntax for doing common cryptographic operations.

Chapter 8 of the programming guide [galois.com] has example cryptol implementations of DES, RC5, and AES.

Re:Kudos to Galois (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26238049)

Galois.com: "Page not found." Cute. Yuk, yuk, I get it. No Such Company(tm).

Re:Kudos to Galois (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26238821)

That wasn't intentional. I think I must not have enclosed the "a href" tag properly. Here, let me try again [galois.com] .

I assure you that there really is such a company; I have visited their offices on several occasions.

Re:Kudos to NSA (5, Informative)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236741)

Just a correction: Regardless of who developed this (there seems to be some disagreement), nobody turned it over to the public domain. Read the license agreement: it says that you are not allowed to even create derivative works, nor redistribute the program to multiple sources, nor use it for commercial purposes.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236881)

Not sure I have understood their license though. I am totally Ok with not using their binaries as I have no idea what they compiled in anyway, but does this mean I cannot implement my own Cryptol interpreter or compiler? From what I see it is awfully close to Haskell. Building your own converter should not be too hard.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237055)

but does this mean I cannot implement my own Cryptol interpreter or compiler?

First off, I'll just state that I'm not a laywer, this is not legal advice, and fucking with the NSA is liable to land you hot water in no time. But you probably could. My understanding is that for a programming language, the language itself would be the 'look and feel' and probably not subject to copyright or patent restrictions, but YMMV depending on your jurisdiction.

From a technical standpoint, though, it's not the language semantics itself that necessarily generates really fast binary code for cryptography, but more like the compiler itself -- how that source is translated into a binary. So while you could write your own Cryptol interpreter, compiler, JIT, VM, whatever, implementing the language only gets you halfway there. Maybe a little more. Having language semantics that are optimized for cyrptography certainly helps, but it's not the entire picture.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237703)

Far as I can see, it's a very trimmed-down formal language and not a whole lot more. Yes, a lot of the work is in the compiler, but there are plenty of well-developed compilers for languages just as well-designed, and a fair few are Open Source, not proprietary or with absurd conditions. And even those which are proprietary, such as Intel or Green Hills, the trial version is full-blown and not a toy edition. Re-implementing Cryptol as a front-end to an existing high-quality compiler, or as a translator (the cryptol-to-something equivalent of f2c) should not be overly difficult. Certainly not as hard as writing a Cryptol compiler from scratch of equal calibre.

As far as whether it would infringe on IP, I doubt it. Microsoft got walloped by Sun over using a trademarked name, not over the language per-se, which is why they could get away with just renaming it. But Microsoft couldn't take action against Mono or any of the Open Source .Net reimplementations because that's not something that can be protected. In this case, the worst that can happen is someone abseils down from a helicopter in the dead of night and sends you on a guided tour of Afghanistan. That's all. They can't sue you.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239121)

But Microsoft couldn't take action against Mono or any of the Open Source .Net reimplementations because that's not something that can be protected.

Yes they can, via patents.

Re:Kudos to NSA (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239201)

You can't patent interfaces, only implementations. A language is not an implementation and therefore is inherently unpatentable. Well, except in the US, where apparently icons for data files can be patented. Ok, in theory languages cannot be patented. They don't define a process, they don't describe a mechanism, they merely codify the syntax and semantics of the building-blocks that can be used to build mechanisms or processes.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26239001)

There's something worth pointing out here, the license which they wish to provide it under might actually be invalid since the M$ binary they provide is statically linked against the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library which is licensed under the LGPL, but I would bet that some would consider this a combined works and therefore possibly making it GPL.

Re:Kudos to NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236947)

is weed man that black guy that works at the grill and looks he's been smoking some weed? he does make some good omelets..

Re:Kudos to NSA (0, Flamebait)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237233)

Now, if only they had the ethical standards to match their technical ones.

really? (5, Funny)

gclef (96311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236391)

So, wait, the NSA just released math?

Re:really? (5, Funny)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236487)

Math 2.0

Re:really? (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237599)

Unlike New Coke and New Math, Math 2.0 is really, truly the future. For reals this time.

New Coke and New Meth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26239425)

Unlike New Coke and New Math, Math 2.0 is really, truly the future. For reals this time.

At first I thought that read New Coke and New Meth... that would be interesting. :)

Cryptol? (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236401)

Sounds more like a drug than a programming language.

Re:Cryptol? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236555)

Sounds more like a drug than a programming language.

I thought it was Superman's dog's name.

Re:Cryptol? (0)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236635)

Kittehs hab been uzing cryptlol for yeers.

Re:Cryptol? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236711)

When I saw the name for the first time, I thought about thinkpol. Maybe I'll release a programming language that is *actually* named "thinkpol" in the future.

Re:Cryptol? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26238731)

Cryptol Math

Re:Cryptol? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239633)

Blue flag hanging from the left side, yeah that's the Cryptol side.

Why the precision? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236427)

Available To the Public on Friday December 26, @02:44PM

Is there something intrinsic to cryptographic protocols that requires a timed release?

Re:Why the precision? (1)

Gori (526248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236669)

Well, clearly it is. They would not have bothered otherwise...

You would like to know the moment you booted cryptoSkyNet :)

Re:Why the precision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236685)

--@02:44PM

And why does a secret government agency use an inferior time system?

Re:Why the precision? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236861)

That's misdirection. Internally, they use Unix time directly - but obviously for a press release they're gonna run it through strftime().

Re:Why the precision? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237397)

More to the point, wouldn't you like to know why they released it at 2:44pm instead of 2:45pm?

What do they know that we don't?

Who is lurking in the shadows outside your window?

Was that thump just a wild varmit messing around outside, or...

BOOOO!

Re:Why the precision? (1)

VE3MTM (635378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237691)

Steganography?

Using an NSA tool.. (1, Insightful)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236443)

Doesn't it seem probable that anything created with an NSA tool will be more reversible with other NSA tools?

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236541)

Watch out. SELinux is made by NSA.

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236627)

What ASSHOLE modded this "redundant"? Abuse of mod points, clear and simple. The parent is right on, and since it has not been said in this thread, IT IS NOT REDUNDENT. Jackass. Moron. Masturbator. Homosexual.

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236653)

LOL

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236723)

Hey! I'm a homosexual, you insensitive clod!

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237973)

What ASSHOLE modded this "redundant"? Abuse of mod points, clear and simple. The parent is right on, and since it has not been said in this thread, IT IS NOT REDUNDENT. Jackass. Moron. Masturbator. Homosexual.

If the poster is in fact what (s)he is claimed to be, it would seem abuse of mod points is probably the least of it.

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236835)

As I understand it, cryptol was developed by Galois, a private company, and not by the NSA. Whether you find this reassuring or not is up to you. However, if a tool for developing cryptographic protocols were to, say, substitute a weak algorithm in place of a strong one, in many cases it would simply fail to interoperate with any reference implementation not developed using cryptol.

Re:Using an NSA tool.. (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237019)

Doesn't it seem probable that anything created with an NSA tool will be more reversible with other NSA tools?

How do you "back door" math?

Is part of the stummary encrypted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236503)

SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N763.no_url_specifiedOX2531/B3272816.16;sz=336x280;click=http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/37a2/3/0/%2a/z%3B210347091%3B0-0%3B1%3B13358338%3B255-0/0%3B29593640/29611519/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bpg%3Darticle%3Blogged_in%3D1%3Bdcopt%3Dist%3Btile%3D1%3Btpc%3Dit%3Btpc%3Ddevelopers%3Btpc%3Dprogramming%3Btpc%3Dsecurity%3Btpc%3Dtechnology%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f;ord=6242438?">

Re:Is part of the stummary encrypted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236763)

no, you're just a moron is all

minus 3, Troll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236539)

Re:minus 3, Troll) (0, Offtopic)

lejflo (1384329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236581)

Looks like the Technocrat 'creeps' are already migrating to /.:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/26/1126256

Re:minus 3, Troll) (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236623)

Bruce Perens posts as an AC?!?!

Interesting for discrite math. (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236603)

Neat. There's some similarity to Matlab, and some to Renderman, and some of the syntax is borrowed from Haskell. The language is compilable to VHDL, so it's possible to generate hardware from the spec. The language is recursive and doesn't support iteration (there's no "for" statement) to make proof of correctness work easier.

This language might also be useful as a way to express compression algorithms. Reference implementations of the various "zip" algorithms in Cryptol would be useful, and ones for JPEG and MPEG compression, which are often implemented in hardware, even more useful. It's not clear how well Cryptol deals with memory-heavy problems like motion recognition or Hamming table building for compression, though.

Wait... what? (2)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236643)

Why would they release this? Don't get me wrong, I, personally, am all for donating to the community and further advancing technology as a species; however, why would the NSA deliver something to the public that would, in the long run, possibly make life harder on themselves by possibly furthering the advances of private encryption? I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I just genuinely don't understand why they would (possibly) make life harder for themselves.

Re:Wait... what? (2, Funny)

Bazzargh (39195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236671)

Why would they release this? Don't get me wrong, I, personally, am all for donating to the community and further advancing technology as a species; however, why would the NSA deliver something to the public that would, in the long run, possibly make life harder on themselves by possibly furthering the advances of private encryption? I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I just genuinely don't understand why they would (possibly) make life harder for themselves.

Yes, why? This is as dangerous as releasing a dictionary - possibly allowing wildly speculative internet postings with less spelling mistakes.

Down with that sort of thing! Careful Now.

- Father ted.

Re:Wait... what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26237393)

... postings with fewer spelling mistakes.

Moral: Practice what you preach.

Re:Wait... what? (1)

Naturalis Philosopho (1160697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237453)

He spelled "less" correctly. His was a grammar, not a spelling error. Oh, and they released this to subtly remind us that they can break (or think that they can break) any crypto out there and so don't have to worry about people using math. Hey, at least now people may be more able to use it correctly.

Re:Wait... what? (2, Informative)

Garridan (597129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236713)

Because building hardware & software is profitable for very many companies; and getting something certified as secure enough for the NSA is pretty hard work. If they release the toolchain, it's one less thing to worry about leaking from the developer, and they have more access to better software.

Re:Wait... what? (1)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236813)

Ok, in that capacity it makes sense. I'm not sure why that didn't occur to me earlier. Thank you, Garridan.

Re:Wait... what? (1)

wkk2 (808881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237355)

Hopefully they have a lint like process to look for known but secret deficiencies once the design is specified in this language.

Re:Wait... what? (3, Informative)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236803)

There is no such thing as trusted private encryption. Effective secure encryption is astoundingly complicated and you can not devise effective encryption in a vacuum. Lots of companies show us ineffective untrustworthy encryption which they develop in secret and which fail in short order... like CSS which is used on DVDs or the DRM in popular games and other digital media. Haven't you read folks on Slashdot mocking them for it?

So the best way is do everything out in the open and have people find the weakness in it before it goes into production. Because once it goes into production you don't need to be code breaker to enjoy the stunning stupidity of the fools that rely on private encryption... you only need to be able to find the app with google and download it.

Have a look at look at the ongoing contest for SHA-3. It's been reported here I think. Or you could the about how they came up with AES.

Here's the zoo: http://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/The_SHA-3_Zoo [tugraz.at]

As a side note: Contests and prizes are remarkably effective method of spending the public's money for public good... as long as the results are open and patent free.

Re:Wait... what? (1)

Vertana (1094987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237169)

I actually didn't mean private in a "security through obscurity" sense, I meant in the private sector. It just seemed that in modern times, the United States government wouldn't want to give anything to the community in terms of improving security for individuals. (These were just the thoughts at the time, I can see why now... just thought I'd throw it out there)

Re:Wait... what? (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237345)

Firstly, cryptol is being released by Galois, a private company, and not the NSA directly. I don't know the details of Galois' relationship with the NSA, but my understanding is that cryptol was developed by Galois, and it's quite likely that the NSA doesn't have any say in whether cryptol is released or not.

Secondly, there are a lot of social benefits to widespread access to good cryptography. Bad security is a constant drain on the economy, in the form of stolen credit card numbers and the like.

Thirdly (and as someone else pointed out), the NSA has to work with a lot of private companies, and if those companies have access to better tools, they can more easily supply the NSA with the products they need.

For a history of the (often antagonistic) relationship between the NSA and those who would promote "crytographic anarchy", I'd recommend reading "Crypto" by Steven Levy. I don't know what the current ideology is within the NSA, but ten or twenty years ago they would likely have been very much opposed to widespread public access to cryptographic tools.

Finally! (3, Funny)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236645)

At last, we now have a programming language that implements rot13() natively! Now my website's login authentication system will really fly...

Lack of Functionality (5, Insightful)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26236649)

FTFA:
"The open version does not compile to VHDL, C/C++, or Haskell, and does not produce the formal models used for equivalence checking."

So does this mean the open version (trial version) which we might have access to does not do much of what it is touted to be good for?

Just another advertisement for a commercial product methinks. Maybe cool, but still a slashvertisement.

- Toast

Re:Lack of Functionality (4, Informative)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237065)

FTFA: "The open version does not compile to VHDL, C/C++, or Haskell, and does not produce the formal models used for equivalence checking."

So does this mean the open version (trial version) which we might have access to does not do much of what it is touted to be good for?

Just another advertisement for a commercial product methinks. Maybe cool, but still a slashvertisement.

- Toast

Yep. Two lines down from the above quote it states:

"Contact Galois to obtain a full-featured version for evaluation."

It's classic crippleware. Free version doesn't do anything useful, and the "full-featured" version costs money and uses a dongle or something.

Re:Lack of Functionality (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237801)

From the download page:

This free trial version lets you explore the Cryptol language. It compiles and interprets Cryptol specifications but does not translate the specification into an implementation and only QuickCheck verification is enabled. The download includes the documentation suite and many examples.

So, they're providing a compiler and an interpreter. It sounds like there's enough restrictions that it would be hard to use anything cryptol-derived as part of a commercial product (or even an open-source project) without paying for the full version. However, one might implement a new cryptographic algorithm first in cryptol and then in some other language like C.

Presumably, the cryptol implementation would be easier to reason about then the C implementation. (I haven't tried cryptol myself, but I understand this is one of its main selling points.) One could then feed both algorithms a lot of random input and see if they both come up with the answers every time. So, the cryptol version could serve as the reference implementation for the final released version.

This is obviously less interesting than if Galois had just released the whole thing for free, but it's still better than nothing. I was kind of surprised to see this made its way to the front page of slashdot after seeing the announcement first on the haskell-cafe a few days ago. It seemed like good news, just not the sort of thing that very many people are likely to be interested in.

What Galois has been doing that does deserve a lot of credit (in my opinion) is they've been actively supporting the haskell community. I may be somewhat biased to think favorably of the company since a few of my friends work there, but as a haskell user it does seem like the language has benefited a lot from some of the work done at Galois.

Re:Lack of Functionality (1)

delphi125 (544730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26238213)

and the "full-featured" version costs money and uses a dongle or something.

Yes, a 1048576-node supercomputer, 1 billion wire taps, and root access to the internet.

Public Funds (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237241)

Considering we paid for its development with public funds, it best not be 'commercially' released.

Can Cryptol programs be Free Software? (2, Insightful)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237443)

So if someone used Galois to release a binary, and released the Cryptol source under the GPL, would the resulting binary be considered Free Software per the FSF's definition?

Re:Can Cryptol programs be Free Software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26238037)

Sure. Unfortunately the source would not be useful in gNewSense or Debian main. It could go into Debian contrib though.

Free But Shacked - The Java Trap (2, Informative)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26239047)

Yes, that program would be free but see "Free But Shackled - The Java Trap [gnu.org] " for more on why this situation is not desirable.

Keep your kitchen clean: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26236667)

Use Cryptol + AJAX!

Not NSA? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26237473)

Cryptol/Signali (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26238065)

As someone that's worked with Cryptol, I can tell you that it is indeed a very cool language. You can generate very efficient hardware off of a Cryptol spec, prove logical equivalence between two versions of an algorithm, and play with your specification interactively from a command line. There's even a startup called Signali that's been founded to expand the usage of Cryptol to the commercial sector and algorithms other than cryptography.

"Available to the public"? I don't think so... (1)

courcoul (801052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26238185)

Ok, so Galois has decided that, given the depressed economy, a few extra potential customers might be a good idea. Cause what you get is just the concept of the language. Whatever your bright mind may decide to do with it will remain bottled up until you pay for the full COMMERCIAL product, since what you download for free just lets you see that "gee, whiz, this might work in the Real World when I pay for the whole shebang...". And, given the origins of the product, I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of caveats as to who's on the DOD/NSA/CIA worthy-of-using-cryptol list.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?