Top
Best
New

Posted by ahlCVA 1 day ago

Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins(www.anthropic.com)
https://words.filippo.io/seeds-solved/
1023 points | 372 commentspage 6
minraws 1 day ago|
As unsurprised as I am by this, and as much as I suspect a lot of people could have guessed it, having Claude confirm it is still fascinating, but.

Somehow, I find these results fascinating, but also quite sad, because we used a machine to solve it at all. I feel like some half drunk motivated graduate level humans could have figured it out too.

Then again, once you know the answer, perhaps you have an obligation to share it, keeping it to yourself might be unfair to everyone else.

Honestly I’m not entirely sure how I feel about all this. I would gladly welcome any groundbreaking work Claude might do to solve hard problems and move the world forward by decades or even centuries.

But these sorts of fun problems feel like things we should avoid pointing LLMs at. They remind me of those weird programming puzzles that are difficult to solve but incredibly fun to work through.

My concern is that if Claude ends up solving all the fun problems, will humans be left with nothing but the hard, headache-inducing ones? Tao had raised a similar concern, problems that graduate students would have been expected to solve and learn the process, are now things you can simply point an LLM at.

I’m still not sure how I will ever reconcile with this feeling, about any of this. I just find it genuinely sad that we might be automating away not only the difficult work, but also the joy of figuring things out for ourselves.

Carlos-Toledo 16 hours ago||
[flagged]
freebsd_lovefes 21 hours ago||
[dead]
ricksunny 21 hours ago||
[flagged]
baggy_trough 1 day ago||
Stochastic parrot truthers in shambles.
greatgib 1 day ago||
What proof is it that it is really the origin of the curves? That looks credible like most hallucinated output of LLM but it might easily be a coincidence similar to a collision attack, no?

Especially finding the solution that is based on using a random number generator.

It's like people seeing proof that the future was written in Harry Potter books by reading the first letter of the top of the page of a weird set of pages.

tptacek 1 day ago|
So I have this straight, you're concerned that the raw output of lrand48 seeded by a timestamp taken at the time the curves were known to be generated might happen to collide with a hash function output, or, better yet, the precise value needed to trip an unknown elliptic curve vulnerability?

I have that right?

Havoc 1 day ago||
>“seed” parameter

>provided by the NSA with no explanation or justification.

Really? Nobody is concerned about the NSA just cheerfully dictating that? Smells very rainbow-table-y

soulofmischief 1 day ago|
Every domain expert has been concerned with this for multiple decades.
0xB0D 1 day ago||
Computers can search information space exhaustively.

This is not very exciting

zulban 1 day ago|
You should apply your brilliant insights to win cash prizes like that then.
adastra22 1 day ago|
> This is not a cryptographic break, new attack, or weakness in the ECDSA curves. In fact, this makes us more confident the curves were chosen without any backdoors or intentional weaknesses.

Uh… did you talk to any cryptographers? This is EXACTLY what a weak curve would look like. Imagine that 1 in a thousand, or one in a million keys, selected at random, are vulnerable to some withheld attack. This approach lets you vary the timestamp or number of iterations until a weak key is found, then have plausible deniability afterward. This is why modern systems choose constants in a way with no free choice of parameters (e.g. sqrt of 2 for first constant, cube root for second constant, etc.).

They even note later in the article that viable curves in the generator sequence seem to have been skipped.

sweis 1 day ago||
Yes. I did speak to a cryptographer.
adastra22 19 hours ago|||
I worry that your statement in this article gives an incorrect impression of the risks here. I would have objected to the excessively positive framing regardless, but the "much" in "much less plausible" is not warranted, I think. What you have done, which is important, is constrain the type of backdoor that might be in there. But we can't say more than that right now with any certainty.
DannyBee 1 day ago|||
[flagged]
mapmeld 1 day ago|||
This is discussed in the post - since the NSA never mentioned how these seeds were created, it seems unlikely that they would develop a cover story that would not be shared and only opened to scrutiny many years later
john_strinlai 1 day ago||
>Uh… did you talk to any cryptographers

google some of the names under the "Who we are" heading

More comments...