
Observations from Life
Encryption is the art of scrambling information to make it unreadable to the public at large. Encryption has a rich history. The earliest historical record of it’s use is from Caesar's cipher. From then to the complex algorithms used today, the fundamental goal remains the same: protecting sensitive data. Modern cryptography relies heavily on public key infrastructure (PKI), a system that underpins much of our contemporoary secure online interactions.
PKI uses pairs of keys: a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. Think of it like a mailbox. Anyone with the address can send a letter (encrypted message) into the mailbox (using the public key), but only the owner with the key (private key) can open it. PKI is ubiquitous, securing everything from online banking to secure websites (HTTPS). Its strength lies in the mathematical difficulty of deriving the private key from the public key.
However, even with robust systems like PKI, vulnerabilities can arise from seemingly minor implementation details. One such pitfall is the practice of "padding," especially when combined with weak key management. Padding is necessary when cryptographic operations require data to be in specific block sizes. It involves adding extra data to meet these requirements. While padding itself isn't inherently bad, improper padding, like using predictable patterns such as strings of zeros, can severely weaken encryption.
The problem with zero-padding, particularly with large keys (like 256-bit keys), is that it can drastically reduce the effective key space. A 256-bit key should offer an astronomically large number of possibilities, making brute-force attacks computationally infeasible. However, if a 256-bit key is padded with 252 zeros, the effective key strength is reduced to just 4 bits. Why? Because the 252 zeros are fixed and known. An attacker only needs to guess the remaining 4 bits, meaning only 16 possible key values need to be checked. This makes the encryption utterly trivial to break.
Imagine you have a combination lock with 256 dials, each with 10 digits (0-9). That’s a vast number of combinations. Now, imagine someone tells you 252 of those dials are already set to zero. Suddenly, you only need to figure out the remaining four dials. The problem isn't the lock itself (the 256-bit encryption), but how it's being used (the zero-padding).
It's important to understand that this vulnerability is hidden. A user examining a PKI certificate would not be able to directly recognize the zero-padding issue. PKI certificates contain information about the certificate holder, the issuer, the public key, and other metadata. They do not contain the private key, nor do they reveal how that private key was generated or padded. The padding (or lack thereof) happens during the key generation process, which is separate from certificate creation. The certificate simply holds the public key. The key generation process itself is usually opaque to the end-user.
So, how can an end-user protect themselves? Directly preventing zero-padding isn't something an average user can control. The responsibility lies with developers and system administrators. However, users can take precautions:
Keep software updated: Updates often contain security patches that address vulnerabilities, including those related to padding.
Use strong passwords: While not directly related to padding, strong passwords protect against other attack vectors.
Be wary of unusual website behavior: If a secure website (HTTPS) exhibits strange behavior, it might be a sign of a compromised system.
Educate yourself: Understanding the basics of online security empowers you to make informed decisions
While PKI provides a strong foundation for secure communication,
it's crucial to implement it correctly. Zero-padding, especially with
large keys, is a classic example of how a seemingly small oversight
can have devastating consequences. By understanding these risks and
taking appropriate precautions, we can all contribute to a more
secure online environment.
In programming, patterns refer to reusable solutions to commonly occurring problems within a given context. These patterns are not specific pieces of code but rather general templates or blueprints that a programmer can follow to solve problems or design systems in a consistent and efficient way.
Lately it occurred to me that legislation were framed in parts. E.g. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 & subsequently draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (2025). So I tried a bit of legwork.... and here is what I came up with.
It seems that patterns may be used to construct statues that are significantly adaptable. This would be akin to what the Constitution of India lists as "Directive Principles of State Policy"; high-level or even abstract guidelines that inform what the State would like to achieve. The State then drafts legislation that nudge the general population in a favourable direction.
The Bridge pattern in legislation manifests when a law separates its high-level objectives (abstraction) from its operational details (implementation). This approach ensures flexibility and scalability, as both components can evolve independently to adapt to new challenges or advancements.
Acts as the Abstraction Layer
Acts encapsulate the broad principles, objectives, and rights but refrain from delving into procedural specifics.
Rules as the Implementation Layer
Rules, subordinate to the Act, operationalize these principles with detailed mechanisms, timelines, and standards.
Independence of Layers:
Acts and Rules are distinct yet interdependent. Rules are crafted within
the framework of the Act but do not modify its foundational principles.
Adaptability:
As technology or societal norms evolve, Rules can be updated to reflect current needs without requiring amendments to the Act.
Alignment Through Interfaces:
The interaction between Acts and Rules ensures that Rules align with the
goals of the Act, much like the implementation of a Bridge pattern
interface aligns with its abstraction.
Abstraction:
The Clean Air Act (CAA), 1963, sets high-level goals for air quality improvement and pollution reduction.
Implementation:
The EPA regulations, derived from the Act, specify
detailed standards, such as permissible limits for carbon emissions,
methodologies for measuring air quality, and compliance mechanisms.
Bridge Analogy:
The CAA defines "what needs to be achieved" (clean air and reduced
pollution), while EPA regulations detail "how it should be achieved"
(specific technologies, emission caps, and compliance checks).
European Union GDPR:
UK’s Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974:
India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019:
While the Bridge pattern is an effective analogy for the separation of principles (Acts) and implementation (Rules), it also introduces vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities stem from the potential for independent evolution of Acts and Rules, leading to misalignment, overreach, or misuse. Below are the key risks and how they could be exploited:
Rules may evolve in ways that deviate from the principles or intent of the Act, either through poor drafting, misinterpretation, or deliberate manipulation.
The flexibility to draft or amend Rules often lies with the executive branch or regulatory bodies, which may exceed their mandate.
Rules can often be amended more easily than Acts, sometimes without legislative debate or public consultation.
Acts often leave operational details to Rules, but gaps or ambiguities in either layer can create legal grey areas.
The separation between Acts and Rules can lead to confusion among stakeholders, especially when Rules appear to contradict or overcomplicate the Act.
The modularity of the Bridge pattern can result in unequal enforcement when Rules are inconsistently applied.
Rules may be drafted without adequate input from affected parties, leading to policies that are impractical or unfair.
To mitigate these risks, certain safeguards can be incorporated:
The Bridge pattern in legislation enables adaptability and scalability, ensuring laws remain relevant in a dynamic environment. However, it introduces the risks of misalignment, overreach, or selective enforcement. These underline the need for robust safeguards. By fostering transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement, these risks can be mitigated, ensuring that Acts and Rules work cohesively to achieve their intended goals without exploitation or misuse.
I've been attempting (since the 2020 lockdown in fact) to get back on the radio-waves. Somehow something always keeps me from making the last mile. At this point of time, it is the Antenna. Living out of a suitcase from one room in the ground floor - I can not put up a suitable antenna.
The paragraph above makes it appear that an antenna is a complicated affair; it isn't. At the same time it is important to specify that 'antenna' really means 'antenna system'. This means there are multiple participants in an antenna system. Ensuring these participants perform in lock-step makes the difference between hearing a radio station, and not. One of these things is something called antenna impedance. Traditionally, radio transmitters have an impedance of 50 ohms. For a signal to be transmitted effectively & efficiently, the antenna system too must exhibi the same impedance.
A good example would be ,marrying a hose-pipe with a well-pump. If the hose-pipe is not of adequate diameter, the joint may not survive the pumping operation. If the hose-pipe is too broad, the water it transports may not reach the destination. So it is important the antenna system impedance match the impedance of the transmitter. This matching action is done by devices such as Transmission Line Transformer, Antenna Tuner so on...
But here's the bit, the antenna impedance is measured between the centre-point, and ground. Now since the impedance is akin to resistance (but more complex as it includes reactance), it may be worked the same way as resistance. Impedance may be put in series, and parallel to arrive at differing values. So it comes about that instead of a TLT, can an antenna be matched by placing a resistor of suitable value in parallel at the feed-point of the radiating element? Think.... Think ...
Two things in life are unavoidable – death, and taxes. Well, now there is this third – Climate Change, or Global Warming as it is popularly depicted in media. This globe, what we call ‘Earth’, is older than all of us; at 4.5 Billion years of age it is also, apparently, suffering on account of human activities. Its grown warmer since the Industrial Revolution – and accelerated since after the second world war. Everyone knows it – Climate change is even on the lips of babes & sucklings. The cause, if you follow popular media, is us – humans. There are detractors. Heretics who put forth a counter-current that climate change is natural rather than anthropogenic. That greenhouse gases (yes, it isn’t only Carbon Dioxide) are not affected by human activities to the extent presented. Water vapour is a culprit just as much as are Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Ozone. That human species came into existence on Earth at a time when climate on Earth was ramped up to change. Anthropogenic influence can’t be denied though. CFC, PFC are well recognised greenhouse gases.
Like a guilt trip, the anthropogenic argument of climate change, receives more media coverage than detractor arguments from more rational minds. On a daily basis, there will be any number of articles with headlines such as ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58883234
(Climate change: 'Adapt or die' warning from Environment Agency)
(Oil companies begin setting environmental goals amid scrutiny over climate change)
(Mass fruit tree plantation drive begins in West Bengal)
https://theconversation.com/mass-tree-planting-how-to-do-it-right-168583
(Mass tree planting: how to do it right)
The bottom line is that it is impossible to escape the frenzy around environment. The impression one gets from such articles is of the proverbial doe caught in the headlights of a speeding train. The difference here is that the human species apparently invented the vehicle in whose headlights it is the proverbial doe. The jury is yet out upon whether or not Climate Change is anthropogenic. Regardless of the cause, the fact of the matter is that Climate Change is quite real. The ocean levels are changing, glaciers melting, wind and rainfall patterns changing ... Every single being on Earth is affected. It follows therefore that every single being – capable of it – must take necessary actions to mitigate the effects thereof.
It isn’t as though there haven’t been concerted effects to deal with changing climate on a relatively large scale successfully in the past. London was famous for it’s ‘Pea Soup’ smog as recently as the 1960s. It also dealt with the problem effectively using a multi-pronged approach – regulating vehicle exhaust, factories, household chemicals, and so on. It wasn’t just London that was affected; large cities around the world were part of a study conducted by Manchester University. The results were apalling. From Bangkok, to London, to Mexico, and to Tokyo – poor quality of air plagued the cities.
How does a person, such a tiny entity compared to the gigantic volume of this Earth, attempt to mitigate the effects of Climate Change? To no small extent, the way to do it is to enlist support against the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are any number of techniques available legislative, technological, direct action. Here are just a few
Unplug electrically powered devices when you are not using them.
Address the insulation of your home to prevent heat/cold from escaping.
Don’t waste food; if possible purchase from the nearest producers.
Use public transport whenever you can .
The simplest perhaps way you can contribute in battling climate change lies in the tumultuous refrain – plant a tree!
Every tree is an entire ecosystem in itself. From nitrogen fixing bacteria, to providing nectar to bees & fruits thereafter, shelter/succour for residents of the forests – a tree is easily ignored without realising what fantastic service is provided by it in return. Botanists wax eloquently on the properties of varieties of trees. Planting a tree is perhaps the chosen way most contribute towards tackling climate change if only because well, one can put a sapling in the soil, and forget about it for days on end. Water the sapling once in a while, and all will be well. Why trees, though? Because trees are adept at capturing CO2 from the environment, and sequestering it – all the while converting it into wood! The thumb rule is to choose fast growing species ... which is more easily said than done.
Botany is a well established science with an enormous repertoire of literature. At the same time, it goes without saying that growth of any organism – tree or otherwise is not monocausal. Any number of factors are involved; in case of trees some of these factors may be type of soil, nutrients in soil, availability of water, intranecine competition so on. Availability of open spaces, and sunlight are obvious local climate factors that affect growth. This makes it necessary to thin plantations out by trimming, or cutting trees at regular intervals. Plantation must also attempt adequate bio-diversity is maintained. On the one hand this is to prevent the development of an invasive species that affects local flora, and fauna. On the other hand it is to protect the plantation from becoming easy prey to a pest that may decimate the entire plantation.
All this makes it obvious that planting trees is easier said than done. The situation may appear hopeless. Yet all is not lost. It is a matter of record that the vegetables on our dining plates are significantly different from their cousins in the wild. The carrot was pale and yellowish and unpalatable too – now it is orange, white, or even red and delicious to boot! The modern banana is far removed from it’s wild cousin – full of seeds, and a dwarf compared to the banana we know. Pineapples, peaches and many others are almost unrecognisable compared against their wild predecessors. The journey of these modern foods from their wild predecessors was achieved by simple natural selection of the properties that were most desirable ... and took generations to get fixed indelibly in the plants.
It is the quality/quantity argument. A cluster of a few trees of different species could provide the same climate-control effect as a forest. No less important is biovariance. An orchard of a single species is akin to a sponge whereas a jungle of multiple species also serves as a natural obstacle course for pests.
Modern Science, and Technology have made it possible to achieve in short order what took many generations to achieve by means of natural selection. By editing the genes of a species, it is possible to imbue a tree with properties that would appear miraculous. Perhaps then, it should be possible to genetically modify plant species to combat global warming with greater efficiency. Perhaps the transpiration / photosynthesis cycles may be edited to last longer. Perhaps the genes may be edited to also accept gases other than CO2 or even a greater quantity of CO2. The possibilities are limited only by technology itself, and human imagination!
Genetically modified plants (and plant products) are not a novelty. Any number of plant-sourced foods are modified genetically over and above natural selection through the ages. Soyabean, Eggplant, Papaya to name just a few. Applying similar science/es to combat skyrocketing greenhouse gases is a necessity that must be placed on the table.