cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-03-05 - Re: Standard for SteGAnography

Header Data

From: Sergey Goldgaber <sergey@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
To: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
Message Hash: 3bdb217c4050708798b6d5f3bb9b5fe7db5b1e7984d30d84075575e76d44d1f8
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9403050329.B28194-0100000@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
Reply To: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-05 08:22:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 00:22:13 PST

Raw message

From: Sergey Goldgaber <sergey@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 00:22:13 PST
To: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Standard for SteGAnography
In-Reply-To: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9403050329.B28194-0100000@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Eli Brandt wrote:

> > know = 100% objective certainty
> 
> Well, OTP gives you this.  Probabilistic encryption does too, I
> think (the original version -- not the practical version).  Quantum
> cryptography is pretty close, depending on how much trust you place
> in the laws of physics.  Granted, none of these are very useful.
> 

Newbie questions:  What is OTP?  What about probabilistic encryption
                   vs quantum cryptography?

How do they give one 100% certainty that they can't be broken?

> The question is, 100% objective certainty of *what*?  If breaking a
> scheme were provably exponential-time, that'd be enough for me.
> 

100% objective certainty of the scheme's invulnerability.

> > Sergey
> 
>    Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu
> 
> 

Sergey :)

Thread