A Modern Reappraisal of the One-Time Pad Cipher.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: A Randomness Hypothesis.
Next: How cool is this?
From: Kristian Gj�steen on 4 May 2010 03:38 nemo_outis <abc(a)xyz.com> wrote: >However, cops' "suspicions" are going to be very thin gruel to >put up aginst a defence lawyer's "M'lud, my client fully >decrypted the file as has been plainly shown. He used a >standard cryptographic method as has been explained to the >Court. There can be no doubt of his full cooperation and >compliance with the law in this matter." Unfortunately, judges are usually not idiots. Pulling this off convincingly is going to be very difficult. -- Kristian Gj�steen
From: starwars on 4 May 2010 07:06 > Unfortunately, judges are usually not idiots. Unfortunately, judges are indeed usually idiots. Worse, they often have an agenda contrary to law and their oath of office.
From: Kristian Gj�steen on 4 May 2010 15:42 nemo_outis <abc(a)xyz.com> wrote: >My "badly-done one-time-pad" is far superior to this. Do let us know how it works out. -- Kristian Gj�steen
From: Maaartin on 4 May 2010 15:59 On May 4, 9:18 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-05-04, Maaartin <grajc...(a)seznam.cz> wrote: > > > On May 4, 2:38 am, "robertwess...(a)yahoo.com" <robertwess...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > >> True, but can you rely on both copies of the key (yours and your > >> client's) having been secure for five years? > > > Maybe. But using a OTP for five years would be no better (except that > > stealing a couple of GB is a bit harder). > > > On May 4, 9:38 am, Kristian Gj?steen <kristiag+n...(a)math.ntnu.no> > > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, judges are usually not idiots. Pulling this off > >> convincingly is going to be very difficult. > > > This is not his job. The judge must proof him guilty, not the other > > way round. At least in theory. > > Yes, it is his job of deciding if you are lying or not. He must either *proof* me lying or let it be. At least in theory. > Most (not all) judges try to apply the law. They also know that many > people who come before them lie (just as you are advocating doing). It surely depends on the country. > > Why? It's just a two-time pad, a stupid but legitimate way how to save > > some space. > > Two keys the length of the file, and one file, saves space how? These two keys leads to two different plaintexts. The one-time pad needs 4 files for 2 porns. The two-time pad needs only 3. > > Or anything else. If the police find anything in a confiscated > > computer, why should anybody ever think it was really there? Maybe if > > they would do two copies instead, one for them and one for a notary, > > it could make sense. > > They do. They are supposed to preserve the chain of evidence. Make a > copy of the hard drive and only work on the copy. First, the computer gets confiscated. This is obviously unnecessary and a clear indication of bad will (unless they're stopping you from doing criminal offence, which is unproven at the moment). Thereafter there's no reason to believe that they're not modifying the data. Again, it depends on the country. I wonder how anybody wants to prove that I'm not just testing my newest RNG. Especially when there are many RNGs and statistical test suits on my computer.
From: unruh on 4 May 2010 18:12
On 2010-05-04, Maaartin <grajcar1(a)seznam.cz> wrote: > On May 4, 9:18 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >> On 2010-05-04, Maaartin <grajc...(a)seznam.cz> wrote: >> >> > On May 4, 2:38 am, "robertwess...(a)yahoo.com" <robertwess...(a)yahoo.com> >> > wrote: >> >> True, but can you rely on both copies of the key (yours and your >> >> client's) having been secure for five years? >> >> > Maybe. But using a OTP for five years would be no better (except that >> > stealing a couple of GB is a bit harder). >> >> > On May 4, 9:38 am, Kristian Gj?steen <kristiag+n...(a)math.ntnu.no> >> > wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, judges are usually not idiots. Pulling this off >> >> convincingly is going to be very difficult. >> >> > This is not his job. The judge must proof him guilty, not the other >> > way round. At least in theory. >> >> Yes, it is his job of deciding if you are lying or not. > > He must either *proof* me lying or let it be. At least in theory. No, just "beyond a reasonable doubt" if it is criminal case in a common law jurisdiction. That is not mathematical proof. > >> Most (not all) judges try to apply the law. They also know that many >> people who come before them lie (just as you are advocating doing). > > It surely depends on the country. No in all countries some (many) people who come before judges lie. > >> > Why? It's just a two-time pad, a stupid but legitimate way how to save >> > some space. >> >> Two keys the length of the file, and one file, saves space how? > > These two keys leads to two different plaintexts. The one-time pad > needs 4 files for 2 porns. The two-time pad needs only 3. > >> > Or anything else. If the police find anything in a confiscated >> > computer, why should anybody ever think it was really there? Maybe if >> > they would do two copies instead, one for them and one for a notary, >> > it could make sense. >> >> They do. They are supposed to preserve the chain of evidence. Make a >> copy of the hard drive and only work on the copy. > > First, the computer gets confiscated. This is obviously unnecessary > and a clear indication of bad will (unless they're stopping you from > doing criminal offence, which is unproven at the moment). Thereafter > there's no reason to believe that they're not modifying the data. > Again, it depends on the country. > > I wonder how anybody wants to prove that I'm not just testing my > newest RNG. Especially when there are many RNGs and statistical test > suits on my computer. |