Top
Best
New

Posted by ahlCVA 3 hours ago

Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins(www.anthropic.com)
https://words.filippo.io/seeds-solved/
442 points | 185 commentspage 2
entrope 3 hours ago|
> is it suspicious that such an obvious thing wasn’t discovered in 25 years?

Ouch. The implied judgment of us humans stings there.

why_at 25 minutes ago||
Seriously though, how did nobody find this? It's not like you needed an LLM to check the random number generator. Given how much interest there was by cryptography people it is surprising.
sigmar 2 hours ago||
Did that clanker call us dumb? Scorch the skies, this means war.
I_am_tiberius 2 hours ago||
I find it so ridiculous that they (seemingly) forcefully try to state references to dedicated researchers who devoted much of their lives to the problem, while the LLM does not even know which trained papers were effectively used. That means likely many researchers not listed were heavily influencing this achievement, and Claude does not even know that they helped. And the world doesn't know.
howunfortunate 2 hours ago||
This happens in academia all the time. You read a ton of papers, chat with tons of people about tons of ideas.

Later you come up some idea, you do the experiment, write the paper, search for relevant citations when you write the intro.

Honestly I think this is actually desirable. For a mind to work well and do things creatively and efficiently it can't be a simple search engine, it needs to blend and meld and reform the information.

And that means the output can't be cleanly deterministically linked to the input. Unless you just keep a log then cite everything you've ever read in your life (and all the conversations and talks too).

baggy_trough 2 hours ago||
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. They tried to give some credit. The main contribution is the solution that Claude came up with.
nicce 2 hours ago|||
Maybe someone already figured it out, but it is well covered somewhere. And Claude just used it. I wonder if we ever know for sure.
whizzter 2 hours ago|||
Claude seems to be fairly good at bruteforcing/testing/etc on it's own, it solved a fairly intricate thing while I was busy on other things.

I've adapted a crypto-lib for TLS connections and had a mistake during negotation that truncated some algo-selection value, worked up until the other party started trialling post-quantum algorthims that apparently had algo-id's that collided with the truncated values I was using.

Claude figured out that from the code and trialling TLS handshakes.

Besides, since there was a bounty on finding the curve it seems unlikely that someone would've found out and not shared that? (unless working at a security service that figured out that it was possible to attack?)

tonfa 2 hours ago|||
Wouldn't they have claimed the bounty?
nicce 2 hours ago||
If they thought it to be backdoor, why not sell for some other believer who pays more than the bounty? But anyway, not everyone is after money and fame.
I_am_tiberius 2 hours ago|||
> The main contribution is the solution that Claude came up with.

That's an argument that must be infuriating to all researchers who ever published a paper on that topic, because most likely Claude was trained with all of them.

baggy_trough 2 hours ago|||
I suppose so, but it's still the case.
lp92 1 hour ago|||
How is that any different from a human that learned from another researcher or paper?
theandrewbailey 2 hours ago||
I think it's only a matter of time before we decrypt the Voynich manuscript and the fourth message of Kryptos.

https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/beinecke/collections/beine...

https://allthatsinteresting.com/kryptos

sterlind 24 minutes ago|
the null hypothesis for Voynich is that it was generated by some random process, like asemic writing, assembling bits from tables and copy/paste/edit. there are some reasons this is plausible (the entropy of Voynich words is low for language, there aren't scribal corrections etc), but fundamentally the "ancient hoax" hypothesis can't be proven, only disproven (since there's so much freedom of choice in generating garbage that it's not a compact explanation.)

so frustratingly, if it is an ancient hoax we can't ever prove it. all we would observe is that we haven't deciphered it, but failing to decipher isn't proof that there's nothing to decipher.

selfmodruntime 3 hours ago||
> None of them were the results of any hash algorithm at all, but rather the output of the C library’s lrand48 random-number generator, seeded with a Unix timestamp!

Could they not be both?

lanternfish 2 hours ago|
Extremely unlikely - these are very sparse domains.
Animats 1 hour ago||
Somebody must have tried attacking old lost Bitcoin wallets on that basis. But so far those early day Bitcoins haven't moved.
cloudfudge 3 hours ago||
Makes me wonder if any implementations will do the cute trick of dispensing with the seed constants and deriving them at startup from the unix timestamps. :)
129-adn 2 hours ago||
"It is still conceivable that these curves were selected to have a specific property in principle by searching over timestamps to the random number generator."

Indeed! And we guess that OpenAI was gagged by the NSA because the massive proof dump on Oct. 6th did not contain cryptographic results.

I assume that Anthropic faces similar restrictions, so this seems kind of approved.

sweis 1 hour ago||
I have seen nothing that would make me believe there is a "[gag] by the NSA" preventing frontier labs from publishing cryptographic results.

We published HAWK and McEliece attacks no problem.

solyin 2 hours ago||
The conspiracy theory going around the Internet is that they (the AI labs) broke cryptography in some way a la last season of HBO's Silicon Valley, and they're keeping the results under wraps until they can steal Bitcoin out of Satoshi's dead wallets, and then use that to pay for GPUs et al.
hoten 2 hours ago||
Would it have been feasible for a FOIA to reveal the origin from the primary source?

EDIT: ah, one of the linked authors tried that. They had no documentation on it. https://saweis.net/posts/nist-curve-seed-origins.html

sweis 1 hour ago|
Yep.

NIST closed it: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/ori...

NSA ignored it: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/ori...

I think part of it is I don't know how to write these FOIA requests in the right way they can comply with it. I think you need to be more specific.

happyPersonR 1 hour ago||
thank you for at least trying :)

starts to rebuild trust at least :)

what's one thing that you can actually talk about out of this that might help people to understand that's getting lost?

ecshafer 3 hours ago||
Interesting. So there was no humorous phrase, and its probably safe from backdoors. They do look pretty random.
egl2020 2 hours ago||
Setting aside the use of "an internal research model", how would one go about prompting an LLM to do this?
john_strinlai 2 hours ago|
probably something like:

"read this: https://words.filippo.io/seeds-bounty/ then find the solution to the bounty"

reaperhulk 2 hours ago|
As one of the original bounty sponsors, I'm thrilled to pay my portion to ISRG. :)
More comments...