cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-27 - Re: IPG Algorith Broken!

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Message Hash: b88acfe5e02ba35a284b38ddedd449cd409e829f88a40bcf464ffe658072efe6
Message ID: <199611270044.SAA11917@algebra>
Reply To: <849030305.93656.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-27 01:00:50 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:00:50 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:00:50 -0800 (PST)
To: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <849030305.93656.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <199611270044.SAA11917@algebra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Perfect is a better term. Strictly speaking it is because there is no 
> finite unicity distance (the amount of ciphertext with which the 
> cipher can theoretically be broken). So, stricly speaking, for a given 
> message C and a prospective pad, P, out of a set of N pads which may 
> or may not be correct:
> 
> P(P|C) = N^-1

What does it mean?

	- Igor.

Thread