Re: Is this simple scheme secure?
From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 01/30/04
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: LEN SASSAMAN: WHERE DID YOU LEARN HOW TO LIE WITH SUCH A BALD FACE"
- Previous message: Gregory G Rose: "Re: question"
- In reply to: Foo Bar: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Next in thread: NYC: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Reply: NYC: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 30 Jan 2004 14:13:51 -0800
In article <q%zSb.80748$dP1.206618@newsc.telia.net>,
Foo Bar <foobar965@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It can be used for things like "I know a n-coloring of this graph" or "I
>know an isomorphism between these two graphs". I don't know the area
>well enough to comment on the case of more general secrets.
Zero Knowledge Proofs are truly magical stuff. The
problem is it's almost impossible to understand
without reading the literature. The hash example
presented earlier in this thread isn't
zero-knowledeg, because A can go offline and
verify guesses about M... information about M came
back from B.
Anything that can be proven can be proven in the
zero-knowledge framework; that is one of the
relatively surprising (to me, anyway) results. But
not necessarily efficiently...
Greg.
-- Greg Rose 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: LEN SASSAMAN: WHERE DID YOU LEARN HOW TO LIE WITH SUCH A BALD FACE"
- Previous message: Gregory G Rose: "Re: question"
- In reply to: Foo Bar: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Next in thread: NYC: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Reply: NYC: "Re: Is this simple scheme secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]