It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hackers Beware...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
New Technique Uses Photons, Physics To Foil Codebreakers

It seems this should make hacking a LOT more difficult, if not near to impossible.



The technique varies the intensity of photons and introduces photonic “decoys,” which were transmitted over a 15-kilometre telecommunication fibre. After the signals are sent, a second broadcast tells the receiving computer which photons carried the signal and which were decoys. If a hacker tries to “eavesdrop” on the data stream to figure out the encryption key, the mere act of eavesdropping changes the decoys — a clear sign to the receiving computer that the data has been tampered with.


Does anyone here believe there may be a way around this? Will this system ever be hackable? If so, how long do you think it may take for someone to find a way?
I've seen a couple of articles related to this subject,..posted here on this forum in the past, but I suppose this is a bit of progress. They seem to have tested the process, and had positive results.



dny

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
its most likely to be hackable mabey a few years of experimenting before it is but it will be. Just like the recent £50,00,000 bank robbery



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Whoever finds the "unhackable code" deserves a Nobel Peace prize. Ok, while it may take some time, I believe that any code is hackable.

Still, anything to secure data more effectively is a hero in my book. I work in HealthCare, and transferring to a wireless environment is hard to do because of "packet sniffing". If this comes about, and is available in my lifetime, there will be a lot of happy bankers and HealthCare IT departments.


apc

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Soooooo what's the point of this tech again?

I can't recall any hacker ever physically splicing into a cable to sniff the data... atleast not since the 1980s.

Unauthorized packet sniffing usually takes place on a compromised router machine or a system on a broadcast network (unswitched... rare these days). It doesn't really matter how secure the point-to-point link is. It's the dozen or so systems in between that are the target.

Sprint PCS was supposed to be practically uncrackable... it was hacked weeks before it even went public. RC6 was supposed to be near-uncrackable and it took less than 72hrs. RSA8192... heh... don't ask. You probably don't want to know.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Everything is hackable. And what has this got to do with the 50 million pound bank robbery?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If a code is ciphered, then a code can be deciphered.
Human nature will always try to overcome things.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Nothing is ever 100% safe.People will find ways around this.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rouschkateer
Whoever finds the "unhackable code" deserves a Nobel Peace prize. Ok, while it may take some time, I believe that any code is hackable.


I have to agree, though people claim a code is unhackable, its just that no one has tried hard enough or we have to wait till more hackers evolve to crack it. SOme just take longer to crack than others so they seem unhackable.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I was just reading about scientists using a new technique, "quantum telecloning", to eavesdrop on quantum-secured communications:

www.physorg.com...

I don't know if this relates to the techniques mentioned here, but it does seem to indicate that, as new and clever forms of secure communication are developed, we can expect the development of new and clever forms of hacking to follow.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Conventional encryption is based on the assumed complexity of mathematical problems that traditional computers can solve. But quantum cryptography is based on fundamental laws of physics — specifically, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which tells us that merely observing a quantum object alters it.


That's the difference that makes the difference. The mere act of intercepting the signal modifies it, so to crack it, you're going to need to get around that. Not to mention, you'll need a machine connected to a fibre optic network, as well as the hardware to decode and encode the photon's.

From the company that makes the hardware:

Quantum key distribution is the most advanced application of quantum information theory. There have been many successful experiments in realistic circumstances. In all these experiments the two-state quantum systems exchanged by the communicating parties are realized by photons, the qubit being for example encoded in the polarization of the photon. Most experiments to date use optical fibers to transmit the photons. Currently, distances over tens of kilometers have been achieved at many places, for example, at Los Alamos (USA), BT Labs (UK), the University of Geneva (CH), and the University of Vienna. Another approach sends the photons through the air (see e.g. the Los Alamos Free-Space experiment, the ultimate goal being secure ground-to-satellite communication.

magiqtech.com

So it still seems like a physical brute force attack would be the most viable, much like the recent U.K bank robbery, where they took a family hostage.
It's a bit beyond the talents of the average script kiddie.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Mate, there's no such thing as unhackable.

It just cannot exist, you can always find a way around everything.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa

Conventional encryption is based on the assumed complexity of mathematical problems that traditional computers can solve. But quantum cryptography is based on fundamental laws of physics — specifically, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which tells us that merely observing a quantum object alters it.


That's the difference that makes the difference. The mere act of intercepting the signal modifies it, so to crack it, you're going to need to get around that. Not to mention, you'll need a machine connected to a fibre optic network, as well as the hardware to decode and encode the photon's.

From the company that makes the hardware:

Quantum key distribution is the most advanced application of quantum information theory. There have been many successful experiments in realistic circumstances. In all these experiments the two-state quantum systems exchanged by the communicating parties are realized by photons, the qubit being for example encoded in the polarization of the photon. Most experiments to date use optical fibers to transmit the photons. Currently, distances over tens of kilometers have been achieved at many places, for example, at Los Alamos (USA), BT Labs (UK), the University of Geneva (CH), and the University of Vienna. Another approach sends the photons through the air (see e.g. the Los Alamos Free-Space experiment, the ultimate goal being secure ground-to-satellite communication.

magiqtech.com

So it still seems like a physical brute force attack would be the most viable, much like the recent U.K bank robbery, where they took a family hostage.
It's a bit beyond the talents of the average script kiddie.


I'll have to agree with this. It may not be impossible (nothing seems to be completely impossible these days), but it would take a lot to hack this system,....a lot more than the average, or even a "very good" hacker could manage (for now). We'll just have to wait and see. I would be very impressed if they found a way soon.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
wont this technique sacrifice a large amount of performance and effiency though?but for banks and stuff i guess it will be good



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
This technology (quantum cryptography, for lack of a better term) is going to really kick encryption technology up quite a big notch.

However, it's entirely possibly that some flaw could be discovered in either the encryption or decryption process, thus allowing access to the encrypted information. But a brute force attack? That may prove quite hard (well as long as the encryption key/passphrase isn't stupid...).

[edit on 28-2-2006 by negativenihil]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
By a brute force attack, I meant an old school, real, physical attack with guns and stooges and stuff, not a cracking attempt. The act of intercepting the signal in quantum crypto reveals where and how much has been intercepted. The telecloning link from Saltman, above may provide a way, one day.


"Quantum cryptographic protocols are so secure that they can not only discover tapping but also where and how much information is leaking out. Now, using telecloning, the identity and location of the eavesdropper can be concealed."

Telecloning and teleportation may no longer be theories, but we are still a long way from teleporting people.

Professor Braunstein said: "What we know is that it would be incredibly difficult and from the perspective of today's technology, a completely outrageous thing. But in 100 years, who knows?"



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa
By a brute force attack, I meant an old school, real, physical attack with guns and stooges and stuff, not a cracking attempt.


I gotcha


Part of my day job is dealing with computer based security, and from my experiences, physical access to a system can lead to the easiest way into a system. Not to mention, wityh the size of current computers, armed people could litterally jsut take the server with them.


apc

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Not to mention, wityh the size of current computers, armed people could litterally jsut take the server with them.


HAH yeah maybe with a floor jack and a dolly. Most high end systems aren't rinky dink set it on top of your desk servers. They are big, hot, power hungry beasts.

Besides, a good hacker would probably be the guy paid to sit at the keyboard anyway.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I've been hacking for about a decade now, and I have to say; I do NOT think this can be cracked.

This is one thing that will render encryption forfilled on the cracker part for another 500 years (at that time, we'd probably be faceing alien attacks from foreign planets and need something with wider technology)

What you people seem to miss out, is this is not your average code-mathematical encryption, heck even a dozen encryptions haven't been decrypted yet... We can't even decrypt the markings on a pyramit's wall in Giza. This is simple data put into a proton core (PHYSICS! NOT MATHEMATICS!), meaning if you seperate the proton it will corrupt the data... I find it pretty amasing, however theres still two options: Either you go 500 years further into the future to find some "atomic decompresser" that can seperate molekyles, atoms, protons, neutrons and elektrons in the right manner so it won't become damaged, or you take control of the person's computer which will be recieving the proton.

So, I repeat for whatever reason you might think this is 'hackable', this isn't 100% computer, its 50% computer and physics, and you can't hack something that isn't 100% computer... So sorry to spoil your dream.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   


I've been hacking for about a decade now, and I have to say; I do NOT think this can be cracked.


No, it can't be cracked, that's right. You can't intercept the data to crack it without changing the contents of the transmission. You can, however, spoof it, providing you have the equipment to both monitor and broadcast transmissions of this nature.

One has to assume cracking techniques will evolve, given time and access to the necessary tech on the secondary market.

Anyway, people are a lot easier to hack than computers and always will be. Social engineering takes over when the encryption techniques inevitably ratchet up. It's happened a number of times before.

So, in the end, total security is a temporary, mistaken illusion and probably always will be. Whether you're talking physical security or network security, all you can do is run the 'arms' race and compete like the other guy.



This is one thing that will render encryption forfilled on the cracker part for another 500 years


Was that an arbitrary number?



you might think this is 'hackable', this isn't 100% computer, its 50% computer and physics, and you can't hack something that isn't 100% computer... So sorry to spoil your dream.


I do think some people ARE missing this critical difference, and you are right to point that out, but I'm not missing the difference, and I still disagree with your assertions - so where does that leave us? While we're on the subject, you're the hacker authority?



I think your self-identification is a tangle of incorrect assumptions. 'Hacking' in the sense of compromising or bypassing security doesn't start and end with a computer. I don't think this is the time or place to discuss the definition, because it probably violates the T&C of the site.

In any case, it's cool technology, and I'm sure it will inspire a lot of innovation.


apc

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Volatile
or you take control of the person's computer which will be recieving the proton.

Ding ding ding. Like I said, who ever heard of splicing into a cable to sniff data? Capt. Crunch, maybe.

Anyway, the obvious tactic would still be to just get a job as an admin for the target company. The simplest hack in the world is one where the hacker is given access by the hacked. Just like the best phreaks are paid to wear a Bell logo.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join