1994-03-05 - Re: Standard for SteGAnography

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: b09c1a852a1e117a545f3e5612b9bb28e6a18ddf52c9a8e8fa4c3731af271cf1
Message ID: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9403050138.E28008-0100000@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-05 07:51:28 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 23:51:28 PST

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 23:51:28 PST
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Standard for SteGAnography
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9403050138.E28008-0100000@delbruck.pharm.sunysb.edu>
Message-ID: <9403050751.AA13101@toad.com>
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.

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

> Sergey

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu






Thread