Re: How do you explain?
- From: "Pubkeybreaker" <Robert_silverman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jun 2006 07:01:55 -0700
kentucky wrote:
How you explain the way the researchers used "interesting" keys?
The question assumes facts that are false.
I assumed that these were candidate keys that gave ASCII looking results.
Since you assumed the existence of something that does not in fact
exist, any further deductions become meaningless.
And there is no such thing as an 'interesting key', in the sense that
you mean.
The decryption results that look ASCII will tend to have more bits matching
the true plaintext.
Nonsense.
I think that careful measurement will show that matches may get better
as you use a better key approximation?
The question is not completely speculation, it's based on actual
measurement.
No, it is based on total misconceptions.
What you described - "either it is the key or is not" - is the perfect
and desirable situation which does not as yet seem to occur in practice?
Of course it occurs in practice. Please cite an instance where it does
not.
You continue to make nonsensical assertions backed by total ignorance
of the subject you are trying to discuss. Stop acting like a crank.
Go LEARN something about this subject.
.
- References:
- Please answer these questions on decryption of modern ciphers
- From: kentucky
- Re: Please answer these questions on decryption of modern ciphers
- From: Pubkeybreaker
- How do you explain?
- From: kentucky
- Please answer these questions on decryption of modern ciphers
- Prev by Date: Re: How do you explain?
- Next by Date: Re: symmetric algorithm
- Previous by thread: Re: How do you explain?
- Next by thread: Re: Please answer these questions on decryption of modern ciphers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
