1994-03-06 - Re: Standard for SteGAnography

Header Data

From: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
To: ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu (Eli Brandt)
Message Hash: 5894b5bb5f3c2743da1e49c03aec0bec61f5ae96ca1807e3a0e5ab4e1b989ffb
Message ID: <94Mar6.101754edt.11542@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
Reply To: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-06 15:18:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 07:18:13 PST

Raw message

From: SINCLAIR  DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 07:18:13 PST
To: ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: Standard for SteGAnography
In-Reply-To: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
Message-ID: <94Mar6.101754edt.11542@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> > 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.

Don't forget Dining Cryptographer's nets and CalShad nets.





Thread