Re: post-doomsday computing
From: stanislav shalunov (shalunov_at_internet2.edu)
Date: 07/22/03
- Next message: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Erik Max Francis: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- In reply to: Erik Max Francis: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 22 Jul 2003 15:22:42 -0400
Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com> writes:
> [...] A one time pad generated from a cryptographically strong
> pseudorandom number generator will likely be cryptographically
> strong, but possibly not unbreakable.
That is not a one-time pad. That is simply a stream cipher. It may
be more or less secure (usually, people who call stream ciphers
one-time pads are also using ridiculously weak stream ciphers). A
stream cipher of that sort shall never have provable
information-theory security of a one-time pad.
> Whether the latter even deserves the term "one time pad" is a
> separate semantic question; as an existence proof, I see quite a few
> Web references referring to "one time pads" using "cryptographically
> strong pseudorandom number generators."
``Virtual one-time pads,'' ``patented,'' and ``proprietary''
encryption schemes, and all? Why should we pay any attention to
crackpots and snake oil salesman when they try to hijack a
well-established term?
-- Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/ This message is designed to be viewed at sea level.
- Next message: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Erik Max Francis: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- In reply to: Erik Max Francis: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- Next in thread: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: post-doomsday computing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|