Re: ActiveX Encryption

From: Joe Peschel (jpeschel_at_no.spam.org)
Date: 07/21/03 

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:39:13 -0000

Simon G Best <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:3F1B1959.3070502@btopenworld.com:

> This is a silly thread...

Then don't contribute to it. :-)
>
> Joe Peschel wrote:
>> pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in
>> news:bfedl4$2b7b$1@merope.saaf.se:
>>
>>>A "one-way process" is by definition a process which cannot be
>>>reversed. Here you claim there are one-way processes which can
>>>be reversed. That's not true.
>>
>> Not by the definition I'm using, which is of a "one-way process," bot
>> a "one-way function."
>
> This is silly. The key term here is 'one-way'. Whether that
> adjective is applied to processes or functions makes no difference -
> especially as the processes being considered here are functions!

It may be silly to you, but the terms are "one-way process" and "one-way
function." They are two different terms with two different meanings. You
can't just decide the nouns are meaningless!

>
>>>They are usually (but not always!)
>>
>> Yes, they are. One process is encryption, the other is decryption,
>> whether the cipher is DES or Enigma.
>
> The one-time pad involves the *same* process for *both* encryption
> *and* decryption - they are not different processes!

No. One process is encryption. One process is decryption. I mentioned DES
and Enigma to illustrate this. I could have mentioned DES and the one-time
pad just as well. One process results in ciphertext, the other plaintext.

J
__________________________________________
When will Bush come to his senses?
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________

Relevant Pages