1995-12-02 - Re: Cypher secure versus computationally unbounded adversary

Header Data

From: solman@MIT.EDU
To: solman@MIT.EDU
Message Hash: c785743807f868da0a6cb9d4d5042bc1982819272cc6028a373ce5ad30864bbe
Message ID: <9512021936.AA01996@ua.MIT.EDU>
Reply To: <9512021931.AA01944@ua.MIT.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-02 19:52:21 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:52:21 +0800

Raw message

From: solman@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:52:21 +0800
To: solman@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Cypher secure versus computationally unbounded adversary
In-Reply-To: <9512021931.AA01944@ua.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <9512021936.AA01996@ua.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


What I meant to say, was that the encryption protocol is secure versus
a computationally unbounded passive adversary AND REQUIRES NO PRIOR
COMMUNICATION.

Sorry 'bout that,

Jason W. Solinsky

Thread

• Return to December 1995

• Return to “SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>”

• Return to “solman@MIT.EDU”

• 1995-12-02 (Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:48:06 +0800) - Cypher secure versus computationally unbounded adversary - solman@MIT.EDU
  • 1995-12-02 (Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:52:21 +0800) - Re: Cypher secure versus computationally unbounded adversary - solman@MIT.EDU
  • 1995-12-03 (Sun, 3 Dec 95 06:10:26 PST) - Re: Cypher secure versus computationally unbounded adversary - SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>