Re: Q: One-way functions
From: David Wagner (daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 03/31/03
- Next message: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca: "Re: Extending 5-level code"
- Previous message: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- In reply to: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Next in thread: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Reply: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Reply: Paul Crowley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:19:48 +0000 (UTC)
John A. Malley wrote:
>So this means the existence of signiture schemes, identification
>schemes, telephone coin flipping, private-key cryptosystems and
>pseudorandom generators require P != UP intersect coUP.
Naah. I think one-way functions suffice for all of those.
(though I'm not sure about telephone coin-flipping).
>if UP != coUP then there are one-way functions that are not permutations
> else all one-way functions are one-way permutations.
How does that last bit follow?
- Next message: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca: "Re: Extending 5-level code"
- Previous message: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- In reply to: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Next in thread: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Reply: John A. Malley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Reply: Paul Crowley: "Re: Q: One-way functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]