1993-03-11 - Re: Hiding Encrypted Messages

Header Data

From: uri@watson.ibm.com
To: Eric Fogleman <Eric.Fogleman@analog.com>
Message Hash: 1fca526a8a25da4b268a6f8e9ba5b7262731e88451ef3251e6ccb721b061bfd8
Message ID: <9303111815.AA20695@buoy.watson.ibm.com>
Reply To: <9303111807.AA16545@ack.adstest.analog.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-11 18:17:48 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 10:17:48 PST

Raw message

From: uri@watson.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 10:17:48 PST
To: Eric Fogleman <Eric.Fogleman@analog.com>
Subject: Re: Hiding Encrypted Messages
In-Reply-To: <9303111807.AA16545@ack.adstest.analog.com>
Message-ID: <9303111815.AA20695@buoy.watson.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Eric Fogleman writes:
 > > a) This method has essentially the same complexity, as one-time pad,
 > >    but without it's strength.
 > Insert pgp-encrypted (not plaintext) into the sound file...  It's then
 > no weaker that pgp.

Please... I said: "It's as cumbersome, as one-time pad, but
without one-time pad security."  Yes, it can be made as
secure as PGP, but it's still less safe, than
one-time pad.

 > Use a "windows sound system" board and record yourself talking --
 > No "reference source"... The codec on that board has better than
 > two bits of noise per 16 bit word through the ADC channel...

Then you're creating a sort-of one-time pad,  which you now
must convey securely to your correspondent. And this system
is still much less safe, than one-time pad, because of some
possible regularities in the lower bits (now I admit I know
very little of what such a recording would look like, so in
fact it MIGHT be as safe as "real" one-time pad).