Make You Nervous that Countries with Nuke Buttons Can't Authenticate Each Other? Moreover, Why? | Hacker News Reader

Make You Nervous that Countries with Nuke Buttons Can't Authenticate Each Other? Moreover, Why?

latimes.com

3 pointsbprater5 comments

I learned something interesting in grad school. It is that the Nash Equilibrium for mutual assured destruction involves the occasional nuclear explosion simply because players must be credibly irrational for the threat of deterrence to be effective. I can't figure out if this is interesting or crazy. But the fact we're not all dead suggests to me that rationality is overrated in politics as in economics.

I submitted this because it seems strange that as much as we talk about security and it's importance here -- that there isn't an established protocol between leaders for authenticating the other party. We saw a similar situation recently with Governor Palin.

I'm interested to get your take on why the most powerful people in the world can't establish something as simple as a protocol to ensure they are communicating with the right person.

Its absurd, and there's no excuse. My guess is that it solves a problem that hasn't arisen yet. Not many countries have had sophisticated e-warfare capabilities until recently and most countries have communicated over encrypted means since WWII. Up until recently this was enough to ensure identity, because heads of state communicated rarely, and they were the only ones who needed flawless verification. As we proceed into the next century, there's going to be a greater need for authentication at all levels of government, and in private life. For example, I'm surprised we don't see more forged emails that cause serious damage.

This reminds me of something I can't put my finger on. It was an article that hypothesized a state who's authority was controlled by authentication mechanisms. I feel like I may have even seen it here... Any help?

The way your first paragraph is worded reminds me of this Obama-using-a-blackberry stuff that is making the rounds. There are other risks than the receiving end in the president's case. When it's easier to communicate, via any available channel, the ability to access the communication channel ceases to be a decent (reliable?) authentication mechanism.

Movies always seem to get this wrong, in both directions. I mean, did Trinity REALLY have to physically break in to the power plant to use an ssh exploit? If she could break in, why was an ssh exploit necessary. And if she could use an ssh exploit, why did physical access help? It all seems unlikely (but makes for good explosions).

The downside of strong auth is that you might be able to start a war with a DoS or revocation attack. See Vinge, Rainbows End.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com