From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f4d04cd1815efbabdb7fa13ec640ba813c6756951a8ba9b3f8cb48be0b3523f9
Message ID: <9407141841.AA16182@ah.com>
Reply To: <199407141619.RAA13236@an-teallach.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-14 19:07:09 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 12:07:09 PDT
From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 12:07:09 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Probabilistic Encryption
In-Reply-To: <199407141619.RAA13236@an-teallach.com>
Message-ID: <9407141841.AA16182@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I hope we're not about
to get the usual kiddy PRNG exor encryption lecture.
A PRNG XOR-ed with a data stream is a perfectly good stream cipher,
provided the PRNG is sufficiently strong. It's that sufficiently
strong part that usually goes wrong. LFSR doesn't cut it (Linear
Feedback Shift Register). Neither does LC (Linear Congruential). I
should point out that these are both iterates of
x_{i+1} = x_i * A + B (mod C)
where the domain is Z_2[x] (polynomials with coefficients mod 2) for
LFSR and Z (integers) for LC.
Blum-Blum-Shub makes a very good stream cipher, even with just XOR.
For those of you may have interpreted GT's comments as to disparage
all PNRG-XOR combinations, I hope the above may help.
Graham, you can read up on probabilistic encryption on page 406 of
Schneier. In fact, it discusses the BBS generator in this context.
Eric
Return to July 1994
Return to “solman@MIT.EDU”