From: uri@watson.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 09:27:06 PST
To: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn)
Subject: Re: Hidden encrypted messages
In-Reply-To: <9303111501.AA26622@lynx.cs.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <9303111725.AA20493@buoy.watson.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Derek Zahn says:
> ....................I've gotten a number of responses
> of the form "Why not just claim that an encrypted message is data?",
> but my original point was Plausible Deniability.  That is, I was
> postulating an environment in which Big Brother has outlawed cryptography.
> Now, confronted with a confiscated message, the sender has to defend
> himself from the Inquisition.  Can't just claim it's a sound file;
> the Inquisitor will want it played.  The question I'm trying to answer
> is how to produce on demand a causal explanation of data (which actually
> contains an encrypted message) that satisfies an investigator and
> doesn't reveal the encrypted message.  Some simple scheme like, "Uh,
> it's the result of my new random number generation algorithm" isn't
> likely to be *satisfying* and is certain to produce the response,
> "OK, let's see the algorithm."

Yes, a very valid point.  But it seems to me, that Random Data
claim is the best, with the highest chances to keep one out of
trouble (if anything can :-).

The algorithm? Oh, sorry, but it's a HARDWARE random data generator!
And if it's truly good random gen, there are no patterns to track...
One can use it to create huge one-time pads, BTW...   "Salt" some of
the encrypted (or plaintext :-) messages with those...

The only thing to be concerned of - the cipher [to be claimed a
random data] shouldn't be crackable, and SHOULDN'T have any
patterns! Or they could present an evidence, that the
data isn't a product of your random gen...
--
Regards,
Uri         uri@watson.ibm.com      scifi!angmar!uri 	N2RIU
-----------
<Disclamer>


From cypherpunks-request  Thu Mar 11 12:44:24 1993