From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 08:10:53 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961130023512.19278G-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
Message-ID: <e3o8XD34w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Don Wood <wichita@cyberstation.net> writes:
> > Different ball game.  OTP isn't "unbreakable" .  OTPs are secure because
> > no matter what key you use, it _will_ decrypt, so your plaintext is still
> > hidden simply because it could decrypt to whatever the person trying to
> > decrypt it wants it to.  Its not that its unbreakable, its that its
> > breakable in _so many ways_.
>
> More nonsense - unbreakable means that you cannot determine what the
> plaintext is. Shannon proved that you cannot prove what the plaintext
> is for OTPs, or for the system we have developed either. The fact that it
> could possibly be any plain text simply is another way of saying that it
> is unbreakable, they are one and the same thing. Like so many you are
> talking in circles and do not know what you are talking about or you
> would not waste your time on such nonsense - Paul Bradley even knows how
> to brute force OTPs, so you must be wrong there to.

That's precisely right - (almost all) cypherpunks have no idea what they're
talking about. They use "kewl" words without understanding what they mean.
The recent discussion of whether the (allegedly gay) droid Data used PGP
or "fractal encryption" in some scifi movie is a good example.

Some of these bullies, like Paul Bradley, realize that they don't know
the meanings of the words they use. Paul Bradley not only posts nonsense
about brute force attacks on OTP, but also harrasses anyone who exposes
his utter ignorance, in en effort to intimidate them into shutting up.

"Cypherpunks'" opinion of any proposed new cryptosystem is worthless and
irrelevant.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps