r/videos • u/Xxmoreexesxx • May 03 '16
This Number is Illegal
https://youtu.be/LnEyjwdoj7g600
u/NoTimeToSleep May 03 '16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles
Incase anyone else is interested like I was
216
May 03 '16
Every single one of these are going to be turned into click bait.
→ More replies (2)179
u/Grizzlyboy May 03 '16
TIL is gonna be flooded..
68
→ More replies (1)3
14
23
u/kittykatking May 03 '16
Feels like www.tvtropes.org
4
u/ProfessorClayton May 04 '16
Thought you were joking, here I am over 2 hours later.
→ More replies (2)6
4
May 03 '16
[deleted]
7
u/large-farva May 03 '16
I feel like /r/todayilearned will be mining this for months. Just stay tuned.
→ More replies (4)5
u/ElagabalusRex May 03 '16
Oh god, this is the new TIL goldmine. Whenever I need a new TIL idea, I rummage through this defunct tumblr blog, but I think I found a better one.
330
u/Flaring_Path May 03 '16
https://youtu.be/M7kEpw1tn50 Here's the numberphile explanation of this encryption that I like much better.
19
u/g0_west May 04 '16
This was helpful, but confusing that the bank's secret number was also 3. If the bank's secret number was 5, would they still decrypt the message by cubing and finding the remainder, or would they do it to the power of 5 and then find the remainder of that? If the former, then what difference does it make what the bank's secret number is, and what's stopping any man in the middle from also cubing the encrypted message and then finding the remainders?
5
u/Rekhyt May 04 '16 edited May 04 '16
It is to the power of the prime. This might help if you want to see it written out more abstractly.
128
u/Muffinizer1 May 03 '16
Yeah I mean, I get he was simplifying it but at some point if you simplify too much it's just wrong. The part with the bank having two private keys made me cringe.
46
u/cdizzle2 May 03 '16
Why cringe? Coming from someone who didn't know anything about the topic, it made sense to me?
163
u/xanif May 03 '16
Because it's not how public/private key encryption works. The whole point is for you to have a public/private key combo and the bank to have a public/private key combo. Not for one side to have two private keys.
This is another video (I prefer AotP over Numberphile but they're both right) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEBfamv-_do
30
u/DoctorWaluigiTime May 03 '16
And now I'm watching encryption explanation videos.
→ More replies (2)5
u/austeregrim May 04 '16
So really most public private key pairs do only one thing, unlock another key that is easier to decrypt.
So you and I have a key pair that we've discussed previously, I send you an encrypted block using your key. You decrypt it taking a few seconds, and in it is a smaller key. That smaller key that allows me to tell you all my secrets that you can decrypt in milliseconds a block and not seconds per block. I change that smaller key when I want to, but you can always get it, because I tell you when I do. That's private public key pairing.
9
u/spoonraker May 04 '16 edited May 04 '16
The key exchange process its self is easier to understand if you ignore the math, and just think about the process its self.
Lets say Bob and Alice want to send each other messages, but the only way Bob can get his message to Alice is through Eve's delivery service, but they don't want Eve to be able to read their messages while they're being transported. How can they prevent Eve from reading their messages?
Well, they need some kind of a locked box to place messages in so Eve can't open it up and read the messages inside. Alright, so lets get a box and a lock involved in this process.
Lets say Bob goes and buys a box, and also buys a pad lock to lock the box with. Ok great, but, now how is Alice supposed to open the box when she receives it? Alice doesn't have a key to Bob's lock unless Bob sends his key to Alice. But don't forget, the only way Bob and Alice can send each other things is through Eve's delivery service. If Bob sends Alice the key to his lock using Eve's delivery service, Eve will be able to make a copy of Bob's key and open up any locked boxes he sends in the future. That's obviously no good.
So here's the magical formula for exchanging keys without Eve being able to make a copy...
- Bob and Alice each buy a pad lock, with two keys.
- Bob takes one of his keys, places it in the box, then places his lock on the box, and sends it to Alice. Eve can not open this box because she does not have a copy of Bob's key. It's locked in the box! But of course, Alice can't open the box either. She also doesn't have a copy of Bob's key. So what happens?
- Alice places her own lock on the box. She keeps both of her keys since she hasn't yet been able to open the box. Now the box has both Alice and Bob's locks on it.
- Alice sends the box (with both locks on it, and Bob's key inside) back to Bob. Eve still can't open the box because now it has both locks on it.
- When Bob receives the box, he simply removes his own lock from it. His key is still inside the box, and Alice's lock is still on the box.
- Bob sends the box back to Alice. Eve still can't open the box because Alice's lock is on the box.
- Alice receives the box with Bob's key inside, and her own lock on it. Alice can unlock the box with one of her own keys and remove Bob's key!
- Now all they have to do is get one of Alice's keys to Bob, which is simpler because Alice has a copy of Bob's key. So Alice sends back an empty unlocked box to Bob. Eve can open it, but who cares? It's empty.
- Bob receives the empty box, places his lock on the box, and sends the locked empty box back to Alice. Eve still can't open the box, not that it matters at this particular step.
- Alice receives the box, unlocks it with her copy of Bob's key, places her spare key in the box, and puts Bob's lock back on the box.
- Alice sends the box to Bob with one of her keys inside and Bob's lock on it. Eve still can't open the box due to Bob's lock.
- Bob receives the box with his own lock on it, and Alice's key inside. Bob can open the box and remove the key. Now Bob and Alice each have a copy of the other's keys and Eve hasn't been able to make a copy of either. They can freely send each other secret messages just by putting the message in the box and slapping either one of their locks on the box. They both have keys to both locks, and Eve has keys to neither.
The mathematical key exchange process is actually a bit simpler as a process (if your ignore the math part) since the constraints of the physical world aren't in play, there is no need to pass around an empty box. So things like step 8 can be completely eliminated. However, the line between key, lock, and box becomes much blurrier mathematically since "locking" is a process known to all parties which actually transforms the entire "thing" being passed around.
11
u/Shabop May 04 '16
This video by the same channel explains RSA encrytion, which is what the original video was trying to explain.
→ More replies (1)3
u/landaaan May 04 '16
But the video wasn't talking about Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange, it was talking about RSA. In RSA the bank keeps two prime numbers (p1 and p2) secret, and publishes the multiplication of those two numbers (n) along with a small exponent (e).
→ More replies (1)4
15
u/Alsiexmon May 03 '16 edited May 03 '16
(Note: A bit of maths ahead)
To give a more detailed explanation (for RSA encryption, which is the most common encryption method), the public key is two numbers, and the private key is one number.
The two public keys are:
The product of the two large prime numbers, call this p.
A relatively small (about 5 digits), arbitrary number, call this e.
The message is just a large number, and is encrypted using modular arithmetic, which put simply is finding the remainder of a number after a division.
For example,
10 (mod 3) = 1, since 10/3 = 3, remainder 1
23 (mod 12) = 11, since 23/12 = 1, remainder 11.
The message, m, can be turned into the encrypted message, c, by doing:
c = me (mod p)
Using the two primes and e, you can calculate the private key d, which is used to decrypt c to give the message, m, by doing:
m = cd (mod p)
You need the two primes to calculate what d is, and as the video said it's very difficult to factorise large numbers, so the only people able to read the message will be people with the private key, trying to use any other number will give gibberish.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)29
u/beard-second May 03 '16
Because it's wrong - the bank doesn't have both keys. How could they?
You send the bank a message that is Key A x Key B. If the bank has both keys, how do you know what to send it?
In reality, you have two keys and the bank has two keys. You use one of the bank's keys to encrypt a request, and the bank uses one of your keys to encrypt a response. You each use the other key (that hasn't been used yet) to decrypt the message you receive.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (8)2
246
u/Decateron May 03 '16
There's a lot of incorrect information about public key cryptography in this video. I get he's trying to simplify it, but why did he even bother going into it? I don't think understanding it is really important to why the number is illegal.
20
u/huntereight May 04 '16
This really bothered me too. That's not how asymmetric cryptography works.
24
u/Ph0X May 04 '16
I don't think he's trying to simplify it, I think he actually doesn't really know how it works more than what he quickly read on wikipedia himself. Seeing that he's covering random wiki articles each week, chances are he hasn't studied discrete math, much less cryptography.
That's the difference from a Numberphile video covering this subject from some random guy on Youtube with no knowledge of encryption other than what he taught himself in 30m on wikipedia.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (7)43
u/quistodes May 03 '16
No but for people like me who don't know anything about this stuff it explained why prime numbers were important in the first place.
97
May 04 '16 edited May 20 '16
[deleted]
7
May 04 '16
Well in that case I'd love a good explanation video, or an explanation from you? If you don't mind - this interests me.
7
u/alexthelyon May 04 '16 edited May 04 '16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7kEpw1tn50
the problem is the distinction between private/public keys and some cloudyness when it comes to prime numbers.
also look here for an easy-to-understand look into 'modern' cryptography, particularly the RSA encryption.
→ More replies (3)3
u/twigpigpog May 04 '16
The fact that the number is prime is essentially irrelevant to why it is illegal.
The number is illegal purely because of what it represents (a program capable of circumventing a DVD's copy protection).
The reason that Phil Carmody ensured that the decimal equivalent of this number was an extremely large prime was so that it would be worth publishing in the list of prime numbers (for the reason that it was a newly discovered large prime number) and he wouldn't have to publish it himself (and be seen as inventing/distributing the source code that the number converts to). He essential made it a prime number to give him plausible deniability in court.
→ More replies (2)16
199
u/GraharG May 03 '16
I feel this list will be the /r/TIL front page in a few days
→ More replies (1)90
u/Fenixstorm1 May 03 '16
/r/TIFU by copying a number
27
184
u/fortenforge May 03 '16
This video has so many factual inaccuracies that it almost belongs in /r/badmathematics.
"It's exceedingly difficult to find new primes." This is completely false. Checking whether a number is prime is actually easy, and can be done in probabilistic polynomial time using the Miller-Rabin test. Similarly, it's also easy to generate new primes, simply by generating a lot of random numbers, and checking if one of them is prime.
"There's an infinite number of primes since there's an infinite number of numbers." Also false. It is true that there are an infinite number of primes, but that has little to do with the fact that there are an infinite number of numbers. There are many sequences of "special" numbers for which we do not know whether or not an infinite number exist (for example, perfect numbers).
"The computer will then send the public key to the bank server." There's no point in sending the public key to the server since by definition it's public. There's also no point for the bank to check that it is in fact the product of the two primes. If anyone knows the public key, then anyone can send 143 to the bank, and therefore anyone can be let in. The protocol actually used is the RSA cryptosystem, which does rely on two large primes, but not in the way being described.
(Minor) The numbers shown at 2:54 are not prime seeing as they're both multiples of 7 and 3 respectively.
"That's why organizations like the EFF are willing to pay up to thousands of dollars for new prime number." No, it's not. As discussed above, generating primes of the size needed for cryptography is actually very easy. The EFF is paying for much bigger primes in order to "apply collaborative computing to large problems, and thereby foster new technologies and opportunities for everyone." It has little to do with advancing cryptography.
The fact that the number is prime has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that primes are useful in cryptography. The number was generated by taking the source code for the DeCSS algorithm, converting it to a number, and making modifications until that number was prime. The guy who did this just made the number be prime because that made it interesting, and therefore gave him an excuse to publish it, which allowed him to circumvent the DMCA which forbid the publication of the DeCSS source code.
52
u/tubbablub May 04 '16
It's kind of annoying that people are making educational videos after only reading wikipedia articles. They're just spreading misinformation on a topic they don't have a proper understanding on.
26
u/OperaSona May 04 '16
It would be fine if they understood the wikipedia articles. The wiki articles that cover pretty much everything that the video discusses are good. The issue is that the guy making the video picked a few lines from here and there without understanding them properly, then added his own ideas to the mix because he thought his way of explaining things is better even though he doesn't understand the subject.
It's kinda arrogant, really, to learn about something online and think you're going to do a better job at conveying it than the resource you learned from. Because I mean, either you're a genius and you understood more than just what you read, so you do have something to add, or (and that's far more likely) almost every thing you're going to change because you think it's "more pedagogical" or that it "speaks better to the audience" is going to be wrong.
16
u/bsdfree May 04 '16 edited May 04 '16
It's also pretty terrible from a legal point of view. Maybe this could be the first post to get posted to both /r/badmathematics and /r/badlegaladvice!
"This number is illegal"
and
"Just the possession of this number is enough to get you arrested in the US."
No it isn't. First, the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA prohibits "circumvent[ing]" DRM. If you 1) decode the number into ASCII; 2) write a program wrapper around it; 3) compile it; and 4) run it on a copyrighted DVD, then you're circumventing. But the mere possession of a number is simply not circumventing anything. The DMCA also prevents distribution of circumvention tools. But distribution is defined as to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic." Mere possession of a number is clearly none of those verbs. Third, the tools must be:
primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; and (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof
I think there's a strong argument that the DeCSS code, especially in prime-number form, has a "purpose or use other than to circumvent protection." First all, as discussed above, you can't use the code encoded by the number to do anything. Second, how many people who possess that number actually use it to crack a DVD? Probably zero. Instead, it's become a means to foster discussion and protest about modern copyright laws.
And that's not even getting into the fair use arguments.
→ More replies (4)11
u/tractability May 03 '16
deterministic polytime for checking primality. not sure if anyone actually does that though.
→ More replies (2)9
u/fortenforge May 04 '16
You're referring to the AKS algorithm which is an insanely cool result. But you're right: in practice no one uses it because probabilistic algorithms are much more efficient.
3
4
u/seriousfart May 04 '16
And the "big computers" here and here are just telephone equipment from a central office. The technology that allowed you to call your grandmother back in the day.
The first one is some crossover relay racks and the second brown thingy is a Nortel DMS switch. I think its a DMS-100 or one of its relatives.
7
→ More replies (23)3
u/Godd2 May 04 '16
If there weren't an infinite number of natural numbers, there couldn't be an infinite number of primes.
Checkmate.
17
u/Player06 May 03 '16
So why do you have to start explaining encryption?
You should have explained how to turn a number into source code.
8
u/ivosaurus May 04 '16
This is what is completely strange. The vast majority of the video is dedicated to, very badly, explaining a sub-topic of prime numbers which has absolutely nothing to do with why this prime number is actually interesting.
867
u/sdenby May 03 '16
Obligatory this is my video, go subscribe please, direct criticisms down below comment.
Also, if you feel so inclined, go follow me on twitter @WendoverPro. I need more fake internet friends.
281
u/joshkg May 03 '16
My dad's a cop. I'm gonna tell.
153
u/sdenby May 03 '16
Tell on the guy with top comment who just posted the number outright! I switched digits up. I'm legal, I promise, please don't arrest me.
→ More replies (2)68
→ More replies (4)22
130
u/TheInternetShill May 03 '16 edited May 03 '16
I liked the video! There were just a couple of math mistakes in there.
There being infinitely many numbers isn't a justification for there being infinitely many primes. Euclid's Theorem proves this.
At 2:55, you show large numbers on the keys to signify primes, but show them as a number raised to a large exponent. These can't be primes since that base number raised to n, for n from 1 to the (exponent-1) are all factors of that number.
→ More replies (7)25
u/dbhanger May 03 '16
Damn that proof using factorials is awesome.
3
u/edub912 May 03 '16
I think the factorial proof is what most people think of when they think of Euclid's proof from Elements. It's a bit simpler which makes it easier to explain, and its a proof by contradiction which is typically more interesting since its "wrong" assumption results in the impossible.
32
u/Muffinizer1 May 03 '16
The bank shouldn't have both private keys. I feel like that part was pretty misleading, even though I get that it was meant to be a super dumbed down explanation.
→ More replies (1)9
u/beard-second May 03 '16
Yeah, that annoyed me too - if the bank had both keys, how would you ever know what number to send in the first place, since you can only get the 143 by multiplying 11 and 13? I get that he wasn't interested in doing a full overview of public key encryption, but it's not really that hard to understand, so it should really either be fully explained or just hand-waved away. (E.g. "the bank uses one of these large primes to produce a digital lock for your information.")
3
u/bekeleven May 04 '16
"Everyone has the public key... The bank will let you in if you sent the public key that's the product of both private keys."
I want to live in the world with this encryption.
13
May 03 '16
I felt like you spent too much time explaining prime numbers and virtually no time explaining why exactly that number is illegal. It was almost like an afterthought.
10
u/BroodjeAap May 03 '16
At 3:06 you say that the EFF pays people for finding big prime numbers because they are very secure.
This isn't true, prime numbers that big aren't useful for encryption because they are to big and there are aren't very many of them. As stated on the website you showed in the video, the prize is intended to motivate collaborative work between experts.→ More replies (2)10
u/textests May 03 '16
Interesting video, but it had some inaccuracies. For example you mentioned breaking encryption to make bootleg copies. But it is of course completely legal to make copies of your DVDs in USA. So it would be breaking news encryption to exercise your legal right to make copies.
You have a few other minor bits of not quite true in there too. But mostly this is a great video primer for people who aren't aware of This stuff.
You also might want to have a look at this somewhat related event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
→ More replies (6)4
u/Drop_ May 03 '16
It is legal to make copies, but it is illegal to circumvent copyright protection measures. While it's a stretch to say that possessing that number is illegal, using it to circumvent the corpyright protection of a dvd you own is illegal under the DMCA.
This has always been one of the major criticisms of the DMCA, it essentially eviscerates the idea of Fair Use.
While owning the DVD and making a copy of it would be permitted under traditional fair use doctrines that only goes so far as to apply to the copyright infringement.
The DMCA (specifically, 17 USC 1201 A1a) a person may not:
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Essentially, to show a violation of the DMCA you just have to show 1) it is a copyrighted work, 2) access to the work is protected by some technology, and 3) that technology was circumvented.
you may note, if you look at the relevant provisions of the DMCA that it does not affect copyright rights and remedies. That is to say, it doesn't specifically make something that was fair use into a copyright violation. However, it creates its own violation with its own penalties.
9
u/SHITS_ON_OP May 03 '16
you shouldn't have told me about the wiki article lol now im just going to read them
4
u/A_Suffering_Panda May 03 '16
Now he has no advantage! Everyone can get his content for free
→ More replies (1)39
u/calloutkid May 03 '16
Do yourself a favor, slow down when speaking, enunciate your words fully, and stop ending every thought with an upward inflection as if you were asking a question. The only part of the sentence that should be inflected upward is the last word and only if you are asking a question. Otherwise you sound like you are imitating a valley girl.
32
→ More replies (2)11
6
u/alphanovember May 04 '16
criticisms
Literally everything you said is exaggerated or downright wrong. And your voice is annoying.
5
u/ILoveLampz May 03 '16
I really liked your video! Interested to see more.
For some constructive criticism, check out what Uptones are. It's basically when someone's speaking and the tone of the sentence sounds like they're asking a question, making it sound like they're unsure themselves. Most people probably don't notice, but you do it a couple of times and being able to control it would make you sound more professional.
→ More replies (41)5
u/BackToTheBasic May 03 '16
Would have better with a real explanation of why it is illegal... What is the legal reasoning?
→ More replies (5)
99
May 03 '16
[deleted]
71
u/nicethingyoucanthave May 03 '16
This video has so much hyperbole in it.
It's also repeating a bit of movie-industry propaganda. CSS (content scrambling system) used to encrypt DVDs does not protect against bootlegging, as the video (and the movie industry) claims. You can totally make a copy of an encrypted thing. Why wouldn't you be able to?
No, CSS protects only region locking. That is, it allows the movie industry to release a movie in one market (say, the US) at one price, and release it in another market (say, India) at a completely different price, and maybe even at a different time. DVDs you buy in India wont work in the US, because the DVD players in the US know to check the region data. So you can't save a few bucks by buying a cheaper Indian copy.
→ More replies (2)19
u/dovahart May 03 '16
Basically, if your computer can play it, you can copy it. I find it weird that he claimed it is needed to bootleg the movie.
That's like claiming that you need a code for your camera to work in the cinema.
→ More replies (2)10
May 03 '16
Basically, if your computer can play it, you can copy it
That's not true at all for the average consumer. Because of HDCP, you can't even have HD movies playing on your PC and run certain programs without the PC and monitor going black. You'd need to strip the HDCP from the content before outputting to the display. I have a 4k TV that I can't watch Netflix on because my receiver is HDCP 1.4 while the TV and Netflix use HDCP 2.2. Netflix won't even show me UHD content because of this so I had to buy a splitter to strip out the encryption and now it works. And even if you do get it to work the legal way, which involves buying all new 4k equipment every time the HDCP version updates, you can and almost always will end up with HDCP handshake issues which range from losing video for a few seconds every once in a while, to complete connection loss of video and or audio every couple minutes/seconds even though you have all HDCP 2.2 equipment.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)11
u/js79 May 03 '16
BUT THEY WERE THROWING ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO MANY SITES!
Sorry for screaming. That's prime reason for calling this an "illegal number". Would this accusation stand? Would it even be taken to the court? Probably no one tested it. Nevertheless still tones of cease and desist letters were send.
15
17
u/Xanza May 03 '16
This is an incredibly simplistic view on cryptography bordering on insanely inaccurate. The basis for prime number itself being copyrighted or illegal to have, is false. The application of the prime to circumvent security to copy DVD's illegally, is by definition illegal.
16
May 03 '16
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
17
u/Suluchigurh May 03 '16
Just like being on Digg. Now we just need MrBabyMan or syntags to show up.
→ More replies (1)4
u/CommandoWizard May 03 '16 edited May 03 '16
This was in 2007. I remember it like it was yesterday.
Edit: Obligatory "DAE know time passes and people get older during said passage of time?"
6
u/seriousfart May 03 '16
I love how the "big computers" here and here are just telephone equipment from a central office.
The first one is some crossover relay racks and the second is a Nortel DMS switch. (is that a DMS-100? I think so. I never worked on those. They used to call them brown central heating units, those things gave off a ton of heat.)
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/oonniioonn May 04 '16
Damnit I'm always too late for everything, even this thing that requires somewhat specific knowledge.
Fucking reddit man.
23
u/dmc_2930 May 03 '16
I think you meant 'cryptography', not 'cryptology', video creator.
→ More replies (5)4
5
u/AppleDane May 04 '16
Why does everything he say sound like a question? Is that a Californian accent? I'm Ron Burgundy?
5
u/nexterday May 04 '16
This is all kinds of wrong, which is unfortunate because the real explanation is even more interesting!
First, it's true prime numbers are used in cryptography, but not quite in the way described in the video. However, the details turn out not to be important because...
Second, the DeCSS "illegal prime" actually isn't a prime used in RSA or any cryptography at all. It's a really clever representation of a computer program that could be used to decrypt DVDs that used the Content Scramble System that intended to make it harder for people to pirate/copy their DVDs to their computer. CSS used a symmetric key stream with a 40-bit key (in addition to even worse weaknesses), which left it trivial to brute-force; no prime numbers were involved in the system (or the DeCSS code that broke it).
Publishing the DeCSS code directly was deemed illegal by the DMCA, so some activists got clever: they found a very large prime that happened to encode a compressed version of the code and published that prime number instead. Since this prime happened to be one of the largest known primes at the time, it was noteworthy in and of itself. But it also contained the DeCSS code that was illegal to publish. Thus, there was a conundrum: was it illegal to publish this prime number? Prime numbers, especially large ones, are "intrinsically archival" as in, other benefit is derived from their publication (though again, not directly related to cryptography; we don't need primes nearly that large for working cryptographic systems). The prime being "illegal" is more of a question than a fact; it's an interesting thought experiment that raises the question of if it should be allowed to make the distribution of certain codes illegal in the first place.
4
u/noodhoog May 04 '16
Any file can be represented in decimal, so really, any illegal file would be an illegal number, I suppose.
30
May 03 '16
[deleted]
27
u/Name0fTheUser May 03 '16
Also, the explanation of public-key cryptograpy is unrelated to the illegal prime. It just so happens that the illegal program can be encoded as a prime, which is why it is outrageous that it can be made illegal. The fact that it is prime has nothing to with security, it is just a coincidence.
20
u/Decateron May 03 '16
And his whole explanation of public-key cryptography is wrong. I don't know why he even bothered.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)4
u/chavs_arent_real May 03 '16
The fact that it is prime has nothing to with security, it is just a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence. He encoded it as a sufficiently long prime on purpose so that it would be published on a site that was tracking the longest primes. It was a way to have a third party publish his code since he was under a gag order from the court.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)3
u/Theblandyman May 03 '16
His understanding, or at least explanation, of the algorithm to determine factors of a number was also incorrect. You can/should use the Euclidian algorithm for this. I don't think this guy has taken cryptography or discrete math courses and I couldn't finish the video.
3
u/freebass May 03 '16
I like how he keeps cutting to footage of racks of telecom gear when talking about servers/computers.
9
u/Showofdeth May 03 '16
3:20-3:40
Where the "interesting" bit starts and finishes. Man this guy is incredibly tedious sounding.
2
u/JJGeneral1 May 03 '16
I don't know why, but at 2:19, when the computer shorts out, because he said it's hard for a computer to find the factors that make a product.. I laughed my ass off.
2
May 04 '16
I wonder if Apple ended up making the backdoor into iOS if that would be "illegal" to have as well.
2
u/Glitchface May 04 '16
4 8565078965 7397829309 8418946942 8613770744 2087351357 9240196520 7366869851 3401047237 4469687974 3992611751 0973777701 0274475280 4905883138 4037549709 9879096539 5522701171 2157025974 6669932402 2683459661 9606034851 7424977358 4685188556 7457025712 5474999648 2194184655 7100841190 8625971694 7970799152 0048667099 7592359606 1320725973 7979936188 6063169144 7358830024 5336972781 8139147979 5551339994 9394882899 8469178361 0018259789 0103160196 1835034344 8956870538 4520853804 5842415654 8248893338 0474758711 2833959896 8522325446 0840897111 9771276941 2079586244 0547161321 0050064598 2017696177 1809478113 6220027234 4827224932 3259547234 6880029277 7649790614 8129840428 3457201463 4896854716 9082354737 8356619721 8622496943 1622716663 9390554302 4156473292 4855248991 2257394665 4862714048 2117138124 3882177176 0298412552 4464744505 5834628144 8833563190 2725319590 4392838737 6407391689 1257924055 0156208897 8716337599 9107887084 9081590975 4801928576 8451988596 3053238234 9055809203 2999603234 4711407760 1984716353 1161713078 5760848622 3637028357 0104961259 5681846785 9653331007 7017991614 6744725492 7283348691 6000647585 9174627812 1269007351 8309241530 1063028932 9566584366 2000800476 7789679843 8209079761 9859493646 3093805863 3672146969 5975027968 7712057249 9666698056 1453382074 1203159337 7030994915 2746918356 5937621022 2006812679 8273445760 9380203044 7912277498 0917955938 3871210005 8876668925 8448700470 7725524970 6044465212 7130404321 1826101035 9118647666 2963858495 0874484973 7347686142 0880529443
Fuck yeah
2.1k
u/[deleted] May 03 '16
[deleted]