Last update: Sun Mar 31 02:13:37 MDT 2019
@Article{Vernitski:2006:CUM,
author = "Alexei Vernitski",
title = "Can Unbreakable Mean Incomputable?",
journal = j-COMP-J,
volume = "49",
number = "1",
pages = "108--112",
month = jan,
year = "2006",
CODEN = "CMPJA6",
DOI = "https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxh144",
ISSN = "0010-4620 (print), 1460-2067 (electronic)",
ISSN-L = "0010-4620",
bibdate = "Wed Dec 21 17:38:55 MST 2005",
bibsource = "http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol49/issue1/index.dtl;
http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/compj2000.bib",
URL = "http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/1/108;
http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/49/1/108;
http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/108",
abstract = "Among methods of breaking a cipher, exhaustive key
search stands out as the most successful (albeit the
least efficient) method. We demonstrate that various
algorithmic implementations of exhaustive key search
are not equally effective, and cryptosystems can be
devised which make some implementations of exhaustive
key search unsuccessful (in the sense that the problem
these algorithms try to solve turns out to be
incomputable). We observe that there are
implementations of exhaustive key search that are
always successful (i.e. they terminate and generate a
correct result irrespective of the cryptosystem they
are used against). As to those implementations of
exhaustive key search that are not always successful,
we describe them and those cryptosystems that can make
them unsuccessful.",
acknowledgement = ack-nhfb,
fjournal = "The Computer Journal",
journal-URL = "http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/",
}