8 ms·
I just don't believe this is reproducible... seems fake.
by rubyrescue 13y ago
I just don't believe this is reproducible... seems fake.
- kevingadd 13y agoRead the paper. The mechanisms are explained in detail and they present data and examples.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- computer 13y agoI was as skeptical as you are. But then I read the original article. The attackers here specify the ciphertext, and they craft a specific one for every bit they want to extract from the private key. The ability to craft a ciphertext of ~1 second per bit makes it plausible they are able to force the difference between a 0 and a 1 to be large enough to be heard. Still surprising, but plausible.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sherjilozair 13y agoYou're just making a fool of yourself. This work is absurd, ridiculous and legit at the same time.
- matthewmacleod 13y agoIt's pretty far out, but Adi Shamir is one of the world's foremost experts in cryptography. The paper is pretty thorough, including details of the lab setup and tests which were conducted. There's even a patch for GnuPG. In short, I'm not really clear what else you'd expect to see.
- rdl 13y agoRead the paper.
- yelnatz 13y agoOne of the authors of this paper is Adi Shamir. One of the guys who wrote the RSA algorithm in 1977. RSA -> Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman This is legit.
- jodrellblank 13y ago"This will be reproducible because the author is famous". (Appeal to authority fallacy?)
- smtddr 13y agoThe logic here is that the author's credibility would be ruined if this turned out to be a lie. What reason would he have for taking that risk?
- nilved 13y agoThis is one of HN's more embarrassing traits. Too smart for the Kardashians, but they'll get on their knees before Shamir, Snowden and Schneier. He's been wrong before. Recently, like last week, he was wrong about Satoshi. Don't appeal to authority.
- myko 13y agoAppealing to authority is only a fallacy if the authority isn't actually an authority / is considered infallible. This doesn't seem to be the case here.
- jodrellblank 13y agoIt is? I thought the fallacy was using an unrelated property as evidence to support the truth of a factual statement (the author's previous work, shoe size, favourite music, etc).
- nilved 13y agoNo, that definition is incorrect.