A Modern Reappraisal of the One-Time Pad Cipher.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: A Randomness Hypothesis.
Next: How cool is this?
From: Tom St Denis on 3 May 2010 06:12 On May 2, 11:25 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: > On 03/05/2010 01:38, Tom St Denis wrote: > > > > > > > On May 2, 7:38 pm, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: > >> On 02/05/2010 18:08, Bruce Stephens wrote: > >> {snip} > > >>> When all's said and done, you're still talking about a symmetric cipher. > >>> (Critical readers (which seems to be everybody) would argue that it's a > >>> more or less useless symmetric cipher.) > > >> Computer disks with lots of storage and flash disks mean that the OTP > >> is probably now viable for email, telegraph and digital voice messages.. > >> Video files may be too big. > > >> Andrew Swallow > > > Once they address that pesky key distribution problem.... > > > Tom > > In the case of the military, every month fly a new KV memory to each > base and ship under armed guard. Similar to the current distribution > system. This becomes entirely impractical once you realize how many nodes there are. Keep in mind you need crypto in the field, right down to the squad level. The reason people shun the OTP isn't as other trolls in this group suggestion because "we're fooled" or "misled" or "don't get it." It's quite the opposite. We get crypto, we get it well, so much so that stuff we right is fielded all over the planet and it does its job. The trolls here are just useless people creating noise and you people are just acting like taught strings resonating along. Ignore them. Tom
From: Bryan on 3 May 2010 13:01 adacrypt wrote: [...] > There's a lot of filibustering and bluff [...] Yes. Please stop. -- --Bryan
From: Bruce Stephens on 3 May 2010 14:34 adacrypt <austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> writes: [...] > I see nothing wrong with the OTP being a symmetric cipher - I would be > more worried if it was a (failed one-way mathematical function) > asymmetric cipher such as the RSA cipher really is RSA hasn't failed. That was really my point. Even if we believed your fantasies about these not-quite-OTP ciphers that wouldn't change the need for asymmetric cryptography. Almost every bit of cryptography that I'm aware of doing involves asymmetric cryptography (using HTTPS, ssh (arguabaly ssh could be reasonably done without PK), etc.). Almost every use of cryptography at work involves asymmetric cryptography (digital signatures, mostly). Indeed, we mostly use symmetric cryptography (on its own) to protect asymmetric keys. Asymmetric cryptography was a genuine revolution. Even if you're entirely correct your not-quite-OTP just isn't going to be anywhere near as revolutionary. (And you're wrong anyway.) [...]
From: Andrew Swallow on 3 May 2010 19:44 On 03/05/2010 08:22, unruh wrote: > On 2010-05-03, Andrew Swallow<am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 01:38, Tom St Denis wrote: >>> On May 2, 7:38 pm, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >>>> On 02/05/2010 18:08, Bruce Stephens wrote: >>>> {snip} >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> When all's said and done, you're still talking about a symmetric cipher. >>>>> (Critical readers (which seems to be everybody) would argue that it's a >>>>> more or less useless symmetric cipher.) >>>> >>>> Computer disks with lots of storage and flash disks mean that the OTP >>>> is probably now viable for email, telegraph and digital voice messages. >>>> Video files may be too big. >>>> >>>> Andrew Swallow >>> >>> Once they address that pesky key distribution problem.... >>> >>> Tom >> >> In the case of the military, every month fly a new KV memory to each >> base and ship under armed guard. Similar to the current distribution >> system. > > Nice if you have a few planes to spare. And then you discover 5 years > from now that the courier was making copies of all the cds and selling > them. > >> >> Andrew Swallow There have been spies in the US Signal Corps but not many. Andrew Swallow
From: robertwessel2 on 3 May 2010 20:38
On May 2, 8:44 pm, Maaartin <grajc...(a)seznam.cz> wrote: > On May 3, 2:38 am, Tom St Denis <t...(a)iahu.ca> wrote: > > > Once they address that pesky key distribution problem.... > > It depends. I send to a customer quite a lot of encrypted emails, but > altogether they make maybe one GB per year. I could have gone there > five years ago and have personally brought them a DVD, and we could be > using OTP for the whole time. > > But we're using PGP and I know it's far more secure than my workplace > or their computers, etc. True, but can you rely on both copies of the key (yours and your client's) having been secure for five years? |