[HN Gopher] X-rays reveal censored portions of Marie Antoinette'...
___________________________________________________________________
X-rays reveal censored portions of Marie Antoinette's letters to
Swedish count
Author : lermontov
Score : 109 points
Date : 2021-10-02 06:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| > Dear Sweden
|
| > I just heard. What the fuck? I really liked Descartes! I sent
| him over so we could share, and you go killing him?! Fuck. This
| is why we can't have nice things.
|
| > Toodles, Marie.
| dcow wrote:
| I guess we can just assume that one day all our encrypted
| communications and records will be deciphered by future
| historians.
| k__ wrote:
| This could get a bit awkward for the people who freeze
| themselves.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The VENONA project also indicates that far less than complete
| decryption is required for devastating results.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Might be a long time though right?
|
| > On average, to brute-force attack AES-256, one would need to
| try 2^255 keys. (This is the total size of the key space
| divided by 2, because on average, you'll find the answer after
| searching half the key space.) So the time taken to perform
| this attack, measured in years, is simply 2^255 / 2,117.8
| trillion
|
| > Expressed as an exponent of 10, that's 2.73 * 1061. Written
| in full format:
|
| >27,337,893,038, 406,611, 194,430,009, 974,922,940,
| 323,611,067, 429,756,962, 487,493,203 years.
|
| >In English: 27 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
| years.
|
| From-https://scrambox.com/article/brute-force-aes/
|
| I'd love to hear Hacker News opinions on how long that will be
| valid due to faster computers, quantum computing etc. Or if it
| will always pretty much be valid in your opinion?
|
| The number they get for all the PCs on earth trying it is still
| 13,689 trillion trillion trillion trillion years. The universe
| is only 14 billion years old and estimates of what the universe
| will be like in even a trillion years are more like science
| fiction than science because it is so wildly long.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| That article doesn't talk about GPU decryption at all, which
| is many multitudes faster, and also it's only talking about
| finding a specific AES key. It may be possible to search for
| multiple keys in parallel in the future, which could cut this
| figure down by the corresponding amount (if the goal is just
| to find some keys, and not specific ones).
| bnegreve wrote:
| Yes, they can be a hundred times faster so now it's only 27
| 3,378,930,384,066,111,944,300,099,749,229,403,236,110,674,2
| 97,569,624,874,932 years.
|
| More seriously, GPUs are faster because they are highly
| parallel, and parallelism can only give you a speedup that
| is linear with the number of processing units. So unless
| you're planning to build a GPU with trillions units, that
| won't help much.
| klyrs wrote:
| A farm of a billion GPUs, each with a thousand cores
| sounds quite feasible with today's tech and gets you to
| trillion-times speedup of brute force. So, feel free to
| divide by 10^12... still not tractable.
| gregmac wrote:
| Have you tried to buy a GPU lately?
| klyrs wrote:
| I was in the market for a single GPU about 6 months ago,
| it shipped in a week and didn't break the bank. Buying a
| billion GPUs is an entirely different question. I'd look
| into buying fab equipment and doing a custom
| architecture. Given the length of the computation we're
| talking about, even a decade of lead time wouldn't
| significant. But as I understand it, current lead times
| are still less than a year.
| skrause wrote:
| Some algorithms of the past weren't cracked because we could
| brute-force them, but because somebody found a weakness that
| reduced the computational need by many orders of magnitudes.
| This _could_ happen to AES as well.
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| I highly recommend reading "The Code Book" by Simon Singh
| if anyone wants to learn about old ciphers and how they
| were cracked.
|
| I really enjoyed reading it.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Quantum computing would use Grover's algorithm, which is
| provably optimal for accelerating a brute-force search. That
| reduces the key space by half (so square root of the effort),
| eg AES-256 requires about 2^127 quantum operations to crack
| on average, instead of 2^255.
|
| Bremermann's Limit[1] puts a fundamental limit on the rate of
| computation for any given amount of mass of about 1.36e50 bit
| changes/second/kg. Unless you get an amount of mass of
| literally planetary scale (as large as, say, Mercury) to take
| part in your computation the time will be enormous even for a
| 256-bit key.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit
| [deleted]
| moralestapia wrote:
| If you asked someone in the 50s how long until you could have
| 1TB of data in a chip the size of a fingernail (also cheap),
| it would've probably laughed and said "in a million years".
| Yet, here we are now ...
| iratewizard wrote:
| I went back to 1959 to ask Gordon Moore. He wasn't too far
| off on his guess. I do hope he heeds my advice and invests
| in bitcoin.
| koheripbal wrote:
| This assumes current computing speeds. The comment above
| talks about the future so you need to assume quantum
| computing exists.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| The mass of Earth is about 6E24kg. The crust makes up about
| 1% of that, and silicon makes up about 28% of that. So
| about 1.68E22kg silicon is available on Earth. Assume we
| convert _all_ of that to a giant computer, capable of
| operating at Bremermann 's Limit[1]. That would give about
| 2.28E72 (quantum) operations/second. 2^255 / 2.28E72 [?]
| 25400 seconds to count to 2^255. Figure a measly 100
| operations to test each key, and you're looking at a month
| per key to brute-force. And that's ignoring light-speed
| communication delays between parts of the computer, which
| would dominate.
|
| If it looks like someone is going to build a quantum
| computer out of the entire mass of the silicon in Earth's
| crust, I suggest 512-bit keys. That'll keep your secrets
| safe for about 9E73 years. I'd also suggest finding a new
| planet to live on, the mining operation would likely be
| somewhat disruptive.
|
| For a more realistic comparison, perhaps they've only got a
| computer with as much mass of iron ore as the recent annual
| world production for the last thousand years (2.5E9
| tonnes/year = 2.5E15 kg). Then it'll take around 5000 to
| run 2^255 operations.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit
| robocat wrote:
| > And that's ignoring light-speed communication delays
| between parts of the computer, which would dominate.
|
| Light speed delays are not relevant to a highly
| concurrent problem. They would be an issue for a general
| purpose computer that size running a sequential program.
| whoisburbansky wrote:
| https://www.nist.gov/publications/quantum-resistant-
| public-k...
|
| AES is still believed to be quantum resistant.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| But I see articles that say quantum computing will ruin
| encryption and some that say it won't. I don't know what to
| believe as it isn't my area of expertise.
| belval wrote:
| It will and it won't.
|
| Quantum computing could allow an implementation of Shor's
| algorithm to exist. This algorithm breaks RSA which is
| the basis of a lot of asymmetric cryptographic
| implementations such as TLS and SSH. By breaking here we
| mean that it is trivial to crack. It is unclear right now
| whether or not an equivalent attack applies to elliptic
| curve-based algorithms which are gaining in popularity.
|
| As far as symmetric encryption is concerned, the standard
| right now is AES-128 and AES-256 and might be vulnerable
| to Grover's algorithm which would effectively half the
| effective number of bits so AES-128 becomes roughly
| equivalent to a non-existing AES-64 which would be
| somewhat trivial to crack. However, data encrypted with
| AES-256 would simply go down to AES-128 which is still
| considered "good enough" as of today.
|
| In practice, by the time we have real quantum computers
| there will be a new standard for both of asymmetric and
| symmetric encryption so it does not matter as much as one
| would think.
|
| TLDR: RSA will break, elliptic curves might break, AES
| will be weakened and the impact on your life will
| probably be minimal.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Shor's algorithm works fine for the Elliptic Curve
| Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP)[1]. So it'll break
| ECC.
|
| There's no indication that it can be used to break
| several other types of problem that can be used in
| asymmetric cryptography. These other problems are less
| efficient and have different trade-offs (some have huge
| keys, some have huge outputs, some are really slow) and
| picking appropriate parameters to make them usable while
| still being secure is a difficult problem. Solving that
| is the aim of NIST's post-quantum standardization effort.
|
| [1]
| https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/51346/shors-
| algor...
| bargle0 wrote:
| Quantum computing solves RSA.
| tux3 wrote:
| Quantum Computers, if and when they work in practice,
| will break some algorithms, halve the 'bit-security'
| (e.g. 256 -> 128bit) of some algorithms, and leave the
| other quantum-safe ones untouched.
|
| So encryption will still work in a quantum world. We
| 'just' have to update the algorithms we use.
|
| See also: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-
| cryptography/rou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-
| quantum_cryptography
| formerly_proven wrote:
| FWIW symmetric encryption has been really solid for a long
| time.
|
| DES, pretty much the first strong civilian encryption
| algorithm, is crackable due to brute-forcing the 56-bit key
| space, which has been pointed out as a security problem almost
| 50 years ago, but in terms of cryptanalysis it's doing ok.
|
| AES will turn 25 soon and the best cryptanalyses today are like
| a factor four faster than brute-force (but require rather
| significant memory, which brute force doesn't), which is
| basically nothing.
| Talanes wrote:
| MC Frontalot did a song about exactly that.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUPstXCqyus
| badrabbit wrote:
| If you ignore technological breakthroughs
| bitzlab wrote:
| X-rays are still one of the best piece of technology. Thanks to
| the we can still hope that on a day wee will have sun glasses
| which will allow us to see trough women clothes.
|
| I've seen this version:
|
| https://natrmd.com
| Armisael16 wrote:
| The research team was doing to as a technical proof of concept
| using readily-available letters. They didn't especially care
| about Marie Antoinette.
|
| The Ars article is terrible at conveying this; you have to get to
| the 7th paragraph to get even the first hints of this. I usually
| expect better from them.
| tibyat wrote:
| I agree. I was trying to find out what synchrotron they used,
| Ars doesnt say! Went to read the paper, apparently they used
| some portable device for the xrf instead.
| gotmedium wrote:
| _> Hyperspectral imaging in the visible and near-infrared ranges
| initially seemed promising. Unfortunately, the black redaction
| ink absorbed almost all light in the visible range, and in the
| NIR range, the two inks were rendered largely transparent. They
| were too similar to draw any conclusive results. Pottier and his
| collaborators got the best results with X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
| spectroscopy in a microscanning mode_
|
| Does anyone know what are the other use cases for these
| techniques? The article is very interesting! Thanks for sharing
| somebodynew wrote:
| Non-imaging X-ray fluorescence is one of the most common
| techniques for identifying the elemental composition of metal
| alloys, including both industrial metallurgy and verification
| of gold and silver coins in precious metals trading. Handheld
| XRF scanners are readily available but cost several thousand
| dollars.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Of all the millions of mysteries throughout history, why are we
| wasting time on Marie Antoinette's love life? This article is
| already nearly tabloid journalism, and I bet this story shows up
| in actual tabloids soon.
| bloqs wrote:
| This is a fallacy that is mostly driven by difference in
| personality. People are roughly divided into people who are
| driven and interested by "things" (nearly the entirety of this
| website) and people who are interested and driven by "people".
| There is some crossover with objectification of people but
| thats not relevant.
|
| Scientific methods relating to historical and archeological
| discovery are immensely important, this article in particular
| highlights something that may indicate many other hisorical
| letters/documents may contain previously missed information
| that while likely mostly mundane minutae, a shining example
| could alter how we understand history and the interplay of
| historical figures.
|
| That said it seems this just referencing a less common use of a
| specific technology to solve a problem which I suppose is
| appropriate
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| Ideas > Events > People
| dmos62 wrote:
| > People are roughly divided into people who are driven and
| interested by "things" (nearly the entirety of this website)
| and people who are interested and driven by "people".
|
| I'd put that very differently. Some are interested in what
| they have, others in what they do, the rest in how they do.
| And, I don't think that people on HN are predominantly
| interested in things. I think they're above all interested in
| acts.
| bloqs wrote:
| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.001
| 8...
|
| The division is long established in the scientific lit -
| just highlighting it exists.
| bloqs wrote:
| if you want some more substantial further reading, search
| around the "things-people" and "data-ideas" dimensions are
| surprisingly established and quite interesting.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The scientific process is interesting, and I don't object to
| it's use on Egyptian papyrus or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
|
| I find it unlikely anyone was expecting to find some
| revelatory details in the letters between Marie Antoinette
| and her alleged lover. They just wanted to know more about
| her intimate affairs.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| This was really more of a proof of technique. Marie
| Antoinette's letters were readily available (the team is
| French).
|
| The article on Ars is pretty shit at conveying that - you
| have to get to the 7th paragraph for any technical details
| to come up - but that's an(other) indictment of Ms.
| Oulette, not the research team.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| From the article
|
| >So when Fabien Pottier and several colleagues at the
| Museum of Natural History's Research Center for the
| Conservation of Collections (CRCC) took on the task of
| uncovering the censored portions of letters between Marie
| Antoinette and von Fersen, they naturally turned to
| similar techniques.
|
| That doesn't sound like developing the method was their
| primary goal.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| Right, the article is garbage. The paper is in an open-
| access journal. You can just go read it.
| slim wrote:
| Actually it seems most of the information about Marie
| antoinette were actually politically motivated slurs made up
| during revolution. So it's still interesting to distinguish
| history from propaganda about her libertine life. I think it's
| particularly interesting in our context, to study what slurs
| are still repeated aftet two centuries
| rightbyte wrote:
| Come on. Reading redacted text in hustorical records is an
| interesting achievement. I guess the authors hoped for more
| interesting secrets then kind words that might be interpreted
| as love letters?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I doubt it, they picked the letters between Marie Antoinette
| and her alleged lover for a reason.
| junon wrote:
| Let people enjoy stuff.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Please post all the love letters you have ever written or
| received, without any editing. Let people enjoy stuff.
| junon wrote:
| This is reductio ad absurdum and a clear strawman.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I'm asking you to be put in basically the same situation,
| not an opposite one. The biggest difference is I'm asking
| for your permission.
|
| My argument was never that Antoinette deserves some
| special privacy, so changing the subject of the act is
| not a strawman. Why should people enjoy someone else's
| private correspondence but not yours?
| junon wrote:
| I'm still alive, I haven't been dead 200 years. Do
| whatever you want with my private correspondence when
| I've been dead for 200 years.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| So you're fine with your private correspondence being
| public long after your death. Does it matter that von
| Fersen clearly wasnt? He knew his letters would be public
| and purposely blacked out parts.
| mongol wrote:
| Can you suggest some historical mysteries that do not receive
| attention but should? It is my impression that the broad
| strokes of history are well covered so it is on this level that
| historical research now takes place.
|
| The bonds between Swedish and French nobility during this time
| period are interesting. About twenty years after these events,
| one of Napoleon's marshals was offered the Swedish crown and
| became king of Sweden.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >Can you suggest some historical mysteries that do not
| receive attention but should?
|
| The article mentions the process being used on Egyptian
| papyrus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are countless other
| recovered bits of parchment that the process could be used on
| from around the world, possibly uncovering more primary
| sources about antiquity.
|
| Or just like any other of von Fersen's letters would probably
| be more illuminating about French Swedish relations, though I
| don't know if they were censored. His fondness of Antoinette
| was already known.
| fsslrisrchr wrote:
| Agreed, I'd be pretty pissed if letters I wrote to a lover were
| published even if I were dead for hundreds of years.
|
| It's _my_ private correspondence. Not all y 'all's. It's the
| same reason why I'm annoyed that they disturb sarcophaguses and
| put a mummy on display. _clearly_ Pharaoh didn 't want to be on
| public display, or he wouldn't have built a pyramid full of
| traps to hide in.
|
| And you're right. They choose the redacted love letters on
| purpose. To appeal to that basest of human instincts, gossip,
| to ensure more funding.
|
| This is why on my will I clearly stipulate that I want my body
| interred in the most biodegradable material (I don't like
| cremation) and I plan to move all my personal information on an
| encrypted medium whose key only I know in case they disobey my
| orders to destroy it.
| Eikon wrote:
| What is not interesting to you may be interesting to others.
| Someone "wasting" time on something you don't think useful
| doesn't prevent others working on something else.
|
| It's not like society is bound to work on one thing at a
| time...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The resources available for this kind of work are limited,
| this is a new kind of x-ray that presumably has limited
| machines available and a high operating cost.
|
| And I didn't say uninteresting. The authour of the letters
| purposefully removed the lines from the historical record for
| modesty's sake. It's similar to digging through a celebrity's
| trash to find salacious gossip.
| Eikon wrote:
| > The authour of the letters purposefully removed the lines
| from the historical record for modesty's sake
|
| How to know before finding out?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| From the context of the letters, the rest of the words
| and where they were found. He seems to have only edited a
| few lines throughout letters. At most, checking one of
| the letters would have been enough.
| CyanBird wrote:
| Well, now they have used a new novel system to bypass the
| censorship
|
| If you fail to see the value of how this novel way can be
| used for other letters beyond this initial test case,
| then there's not much else to say I feel
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >If you fail to see the value of how this novel way can
| be used for other letters beyond this initial test case
|
| This initial test case based on a technique already in
| practice on other sources of writing? None of my posts
| have dismissed the technology, just it's use in this
| case.
| sysihyk wrote:
| Makes me wonder how destructive this X-ray scan was.
| podiki wrote:
| The most, um, interesting thing I learned from this was about
| "soaking"...[0]
|
| [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgb88/viral-jump-humping-
| ti...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-03 23:01 UTC)