From: wichita@cyberstation.net
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:41:41 -0800 (PST)
To: The Deviant <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.94.961124141239.15389B-100000@random.sp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961130023512.19278G-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, The Deviant wrote:

> > At  4:21 PM 11/23/96 -0800, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> > >At 12:33 PM 11/23/1996, Eric Murray wrote:
> > >>You point could have been that the same problem exists
> > >>for proofs- that next week someone could come up
> > >>with a way to prove, for all time, that an algorithim
> > >>really IS unbreakable.  So, to cover that posibility
> > >>I should have said "it's currently impossible to
> > >>prove an algorithim unbreakable". :-)
> > >
> > >Or, more accurately, nobody credible has seen such a proof.  But, a
> > >clever person might invent one.
> > 
> > I thought Shannon proved one-time-pads to be unbreakable using information
> > theory.
> 
> 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.

With Kindest regards,

Don Wood
 

> 
>