Random numbers are the heart of encryption. The reason why hackers are successful is that they can discover the random number sequence (keys) used in common encryption schemes. That's because certain random numbers are predictable, such as in the calculation of pi, for example. It's not easy being truly random but the beauty of quantum physics may now change all that. Research at Los Alamos National Laboratories has produced a quantum random number generator that is small as a sugar cube and can be easily marketed commercially.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/20/inside ... -internet/
Random Numbers
Re: Random Numbers
This would be WONDERFUL if they could get laws passed to make it mandatory in gaming machines.
I used to work on gaming machines, and although the government requires the use of a tested and sealed random number generator, they do not control how it is handled afterward to the extent it should be controlled.
Slots especially are all now run from a central computer system, they cannot control the random numbers, but they can control the payout percentages on each individual machine and on each player playing those machines.
Computers analyze the playing habits of each player, and they learn where the tipping point is. How much a player will lose before quitting for the day. So they allow a few extra wins to keep them playing longer. Just enough to get them to dig deeper into their pockets without realizing it.
As far as card games go, only play at tables with real dealers dealing real cards, not using an electronic shoe. How the electronic shoe is loaded is not completely random. Which players are seated in which seats has a lot to do with which loading program is called to load the shoe. Still random, but heavily weighted, and can be changed mid-game too!
On-line Casino's are often not in the US and they change the algorithm constantly during each round of dealing. Best not to play on-line, because they do change the odds instantly. You can't beat a computer, so don't try!
I used to work on gaming machines, and although the government requires the use of a tested and sealed random number generator, they do not control how it is handled afterward to the extent it should be controlled.
Slots especially are all now run from a central computer system, they cannot control the random numbers, but they can control the payout percentages on each individual machine and on each player playing those machines.
Computers analyze the playing habits of each player, and they learn where the tipping point is. How much a player will lose before quitting for the day. So they allow a few extra wins to keep them playing longer. Just enough to get them to dig deeper into their pockets without realizing it.
As far as card games go, only play at tables with real dealers dealing real cards, not using an electronic shoe. How the electronic shoe is loaded is not completely random. Which players are seated in which seats has a lot to do with which loading program is called to load the shoe. Still random, but heavily weighted, and can be changed mid-game too!
On-line Casino's are often not in the US and they change the algorithm constantly during each round of dealing. Best not to play on-line, because they do change the odds instantly. You can't beat a computer, so don't try!
Re: Random Numbers
The casino and gaming folks are in business solely to make a profit. It makes sense that they would do all they can to stack the odds in their favor. There would be no casinos and gaming houses if they did not do that. Their efforts are a classic demonstration of what people can do with random numbers that are predictable. The results of events can be manipulated with such knowledge in the right hands. Research into quantum encryption methods goes in the opposite direction. The interest there is to make things as unpredictable as possible. The goal is to make the lives of hackers difficult.
I know you must be thinking what is to stop the bad guys from getting their hands on bigger and better computers so that even the quantum codes can be broken. The answer is amazing and one that I don't fully understand yet. The encryption over a quantum network is a one off thing. You send an encrypted message to me and I can read it, but any subsequent readings changes the encryption. It's the idea that merely observing an event changes the outcome. That makes perfect sense in a subatomic quantum physics dominated world. Up here on the human level it's a gigantic mystery. Fortunately, it looks as if we can make it work to our advantage.
I know you must be thinking what is to stop the bad guys from getting their hands on bigger and better computers so that even the quantum codes can be broken. The answer is amazing and one that I don't fully understand yet. The encryption over a quantum network is a one off thing. You send an encrypted message to me and I can read it, but any subsequent readings changes the encryption. It's the idea that merely observing an event changes the outcome. That makes perfect sense in a subatomic quantum physics dominated world. Up here on the human level it's a gigantic mystery. Fortunately, it looks as if we can make it work to our advantage.
Re: Random Numbers
I understand the part about random number generators falling into a routine which can be tracked and utilized to make it not as random as it seems.
But never could get my head around encryption techniques which has the answer key sent with it.
Without the key, the recipient couldn't read it. I know you've explained this until you are blue in the face, but honestly, it is way above my head.
Raised on a farm, although there were variations we couldn't calculate, chickens are almost always true to the formula.
You put a white chicken with a red chicken and your going to get two reds, two whites, and two mottled, with an oddball every once in a while.
Doesn't work like that with most animals though, hi hi...
I can see making an almost impenetrable encryption for certain things, but to mess with encryption and use it for almost everything as they are doing today, seems to me it's like asking for trouble when something goes wrong, and suddenly everything is all messed up and nobody in the world will be able to straighten it out.
My neighbor has a new to him used Mercedes car, it has no keys to it, other than an emergency use key. The dealer recorded his and his wife's thumbprints. This is only used to unlock the doors. I have no idea how they start the car, unless it's the same system inside. Were not that close of neighbors to learn details, he just likes to brag, Look no keys!
But never could get my head around encryption techniques which has the answer key sent with it.
Without the key, the recipient couldn't read it. I know you've explained this until you are blue in the face, but honestly, it is way above my head.
Raised on a farm, although there were variations we couldn't calculate, chickens are almost always true to the formula.
You put a white chicken with a red chicken and your going to get two reds, two whites, and two mottled, with an oddball every once in a while.
Doesn't work like that with most animals though, hi hi...
I can see making an almost impenetrable encryption for certain things, but to mess with encryption and use it for almost everything as they are doing today, seems to me it's like asking for trouble when something goes wrong, and suddenly everything is all messed up and nobody in the world will be able to straighten it out.
My neighbor has a new to him used Mercedes car, it has no keys to it, other than an emergency use key. The dealer recorded his and his wife's thumbprints. This is only used to unlock the doors. I have no idea how they start the car, unless it's the same system inside. Were not that close of neighbors to learn details, he just likes to brag, Look no keys!
Re: Random Numbers
Since a picture is worth a thousand words ...
Let's say you want to send me a secret message. You write it down on a piece of paper and then take a photograph of it. The photograph is composed using JPEG standards. Both you and I have a program called MAGIC on our computers, which is used to send and receive JPEG messages to each other. The MAGIC program requires a password in order for it to do it's thing. That means you have a password on your computer that allows you to use MAGIC when sending me messages. I have my own password on my computer that allows my copy of MAGIC to read your JPEG file. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this analogy. The JPEG encoding is public knowledge, but the passwords needed to use MAGIC is private. The hard part to visualize is that MAGIC cam strip away the encoding (your password + JPEG) that you put into the file so that I can get the picture.
In a sense the above is two factor authentication, but if you are a really clever person, what you write down on that piece of paper would also be encrypted. You could send me a second message with the decryption key and that would make the life of a hacker even more difficult. Given enough time, money, and incentive, even this double encryption scheme can be figured out. The idea behind quantum encryption raises the stakes by elevating the encryption codes to a level equivalent to all the random possibilities in the universe.
The entire controversy about the right to privacy by encryption is one of those dilemmas that may have no equitable solution. Does individual privacy supersede the security needs of society, which is composed of individuals. Tough question to answer unless you happen to live in Brussels this morning.
You may end up having the last laugh over your friend with the Mercedes. If entry into his automobile and starting the engine is via wireless transactions, he is vulnerable each time he sends a message to his car's computer. Those remote keys work over a distance of at least 50 feet and most will work from three times that distance. The data sent to the car can be intercepted and logged by a Mercedes burglar out of sight a hundred feet away. Once the bad guy has the data, he too can send it because there is no encryption nor any other kind of security in the world of IoT (Internet of Things). I'm certain that will all change when hackers find a use for breaking into your microwave oven, but so far nobody seems to be concerned about it.
Let's say you want to send me a secret message. You write it down on a piece of paper and then take a photograph of it. The photograph is composed using JPEG standards. Both you and I have a program called MAGIC on our computers, which is used to send and receive JPEG messages to each other. The MAGIC program requires a password in order for it to do it's thing. That means you have a password on your computer that allows you to use MAGIC when sending me messages. I have my own password on my computer that allows my copy of MAGIC to read your JPEG file. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this analogy. The JPEG encoding is public knowledge, but the passwords needed to use MAGIC is private. The hard part to visualize is that MAGIC cam strip away the encoding (your password + JPEG) that you put into the file so that I can get the picture.
In a sense the above is two factor authentication, but if you are a really clever person, what you write down on that piece of paper would also be encrypted. You could send me a second message with the decryption key and that would make the life of a hacker even more difficult. Given enough time, money, and incentive, even this double encryption scheme can be figured out. The idea behind quantum encryption raises the stakes by elevating the encryption codes to a level equivalent to all the random possibilities in the universe.
The entire controversy about the right to privacy by encryption is one of those dilemmas that may have no equitable solution. Does individual privacy supersede the security needs of society, which is composed of individuals. Tough question to answer unless you happen to live in Brussels this morning.
You may end up having the last laugh over your friend with the Mercedes. If entry into his automobile and starting the engine is via wireless transactions, he is vulnerable each time he sends a message to his car's computer. Those remote keys work over a distance of at least 50 feet and most will work from three times that distance. The data sent to the car can be intercepted and logged by a Mercedes burglar out of sight a hundred feet away. Once the bad guy has the data, he too can send it because there is no encryption nor any other kind of security in the world of IoT (Internet of Things). I'm certain that will all change when hackers find a use for breaking into your microwave oven, but so far nobody seems to be concerned about it.
Re: Random Numbers
As usual, you made sense to my thick headbone on the encryption angle.
I rarely use my key fob to open my car door. I use the physical key most often.
The neighbors Mercedes, you have to place your thumb on the scanner button and wait a second then the door unlocks.
My brother had a car for a very short time that you could start in the winter from inside the house to let it warm up.
He had to remember to turn the heater knob up and the fan up, and set it to defrost if need be when he parked the car at night, so it would heat up the cabin and defrost the windows in the morning.
I often wondered if you accidentally bumped the button while the key fob that did this was in your pocket, if it would work to start the car without your knowing the car was running.
He found his car running at work a couple of times and had this auto-start disabled. Figuring someone nearby was on the same code or something. Turned out, overpowered CB radios from truckers passing was playing havoc with his car.
Due to other problems while driving, he got rid of the car real fast, hi hi...
I rarely use my key fob to open my car door. I use the physical key most often.
The neighbors Mercedes, you have to place your thumb on the scanner button and wait a second then the door unlocks.
My brother had a car for a very short time that you could start in the winter from inside the house to let it warm up.
He had to remember to turn the heater knob up and the fan up, and set it to defrost if need be when he parked the car at night, so it would heat up the cabin and defrost the windows in the morning.
I often wondered if you accidentally bumped the button while the key fob that did this was in your pocket, if it would work to start the car without your knowing the car was running.
He found his car running at work a couple of times and had this auto-start disabled. Figuring someone nearby was on the same code or something. Turned out, overpowered CB radios from truckers passing was playing havoc with his car.
Due to other problems while driving, he got rid of the car real fast, hi hi...
Re: Random Numbers
I drive around a nine year old Saturn that can have it's engine started remotely. I did it a time or two just to prove it's possible but found no major benefit to leaving my car running and unattended, Chicago winter notwithstanding. It takes more than one click to get the engine to turn over, plus the key has to be pressed for a certain length of time. This obnoxious procedure was intended to prevent unintended starting I presume.
I don't know much about the electronics embedded in the remote access keys, but I do know Linux is not the operating system behind it.
There is no operating system in fact. It's just a matter of emitting a carrier with digital strings of information and the receiver decoding it all. I suppose an overload of RF can open any car lock similar to jarring the lock on the front door of your house the right way will open it without a key. And therein is the potential problem. There are no safeguards built into those devices that now communicate with each other over the internet. I don't know what Mercedes is doing either. It seems like a attempt at multiple factor authentication. I'm not sure how that fares against a high power transmitter overloading the circuitry, but it certainly must look cool to the people who own such devices.
One of the major drawbacks to my Saturn is in the mechanical lock mechanism. Putting the car in Park will automatically open all the locks. They stay open until they receive the rf instructions to lock things up again. If you try to lock the doors mechanically, only the driver's door will lock. The other three doors stay unlocked. I can see this being beneficial when trying to enter a locked car. You don't need anyone rushing into your car because the doors opposite you open automatically. GM figured this was a way to protect naive young women trying to enter their cars after a late night of partying. However, they didn't seem to carry the idea over to locking up the car.
Then again, I might be missing something. I've only owned the car for seven years now.
I don't know much about the electronics embedded in the remote access keys, but I do know Linux is not the operating system behind it.
There is no operating system in fact. It's just a matter of emitting a carrier with digital strings of information and the receiver decoding it all. I suppose an overload of RF can open any car lock similar to jarring the lock on the front door of your house the right way will open it without a key. And therein is the potential problem. There are no safeguards built into those devices that now communicate with each other over the internet. I don't know what Mercedes is doing either. It seems like a attempt at multiple factor authentication. I'm not sure how that fares against a high power transmitter overloading the circuitry, but it certainly must look cool to the people who own such devices.One of the major drawbacks to my Saturn is in the mechanical lock mechanism. Putting the car in Park will automatically open all the locks. They stay open until they receive the rf instructions to lock things up again. If you try to lock the doors mechanically, only the driver's door will lock. The other three doors stay unlocked. I can see this being beneficial when trying to enter a locked car. You don't need anyone rushing into your car because the doors opposite you open automatically. GM figured this was a way to protect naive young women trying to enter their cars after a late night of partying. However, they didn't seem to carry the idea over to locking up the car.
Then again, I might be missing something. I've only owned the car for seven years now.
Re: Random Numbers
I rented a car for a trip once that all the doors unlocked when you put the car in park.
The doors would not lock if the engine was still running either, unless you were seated on the drivers seat.
If I remember right, if you had a passenger, you could not shift out of park unless they latched the seat belt.
I'm driving a 1997 Blazer I bought new. I've kept it up well, however, the hailstorm really did a number on it.
I started looking in 1999 to buy a second one just like it, and never found one.
Bought the frau a used 2002 Blazer a couple of years ago, and it has none of the features mine has.
I just hope my old Blazer never gets wrecked because I've never found anything I would want to drive since.
The doors would not lock if the engine was still running either, unless you were seated on the drivers seat.
If I remember right, if you had a passenger, you could not shift out of park unless they latched the seat belt.
I'm driving a 1997 Blazer I bought new. I've kept it up well, however, the hailstorm really did a number on it.
I started looking in 1999 to buy a second one just like it, and never found one.
Bought the frau a used 2002 Blazer a couple of years ago, and it has none of the features mine has.
I just hope my old Blazer never gets wrecked because I've never found anything I would want to drive since.