1996-07-22 - Re: A Snake-Oil FAQ

Header Data

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Message Hash: af3e6e2fa421e70a6164639d8c006f96e5c7ca1527eb8a76c6ffcc5c77d047c4
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960721230410.23635A-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Reply To: <v03007803ae188f5668ca@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-22 05:49:43 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:49:43 +0800

Raw message

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:49:43 +0800
To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Subject: Re: A Snake-Oil FAQ
In-Reply-To: <v03007803ae188f5668ca@[]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960721230410.23635A-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sun, 21 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
> It's not a "monkeys in the British Museum" problem, since when you hit the
> right key sequences both encrypted text streams will fall cleanly
> out--otherwise the chances are overwhelming (given a decently long run)
> that one of the two streams will contain garbles or more likely be complete
> gibberish.

Not with one-time-pads... the key is as long as the plaintext. Our Hamlet 
writing monkeys will produce, amongst others, numerous versions of the 
play where the prince's name is telmaH. As well as vastly more where the 
monkeys get all the way to the last sentence and then 

One-Time-Pads offer perfect security as long as they're only used once. If
they're used more than once, they're not one-time-pads. 

Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........