1997-01-10 - Re: IMPORTANT: Additional information about UDCM.

Header Data

From: geeman@best.com
To: DataETRsch@aol.com
Message Hash: 9e00600c84d4daea3d09441aedb914b5ef5da619b618a1d21a1f3ef1b89560ae
Message ID: <3.0.32.19970109200218.006d59dc@best.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-10 03:51:47 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:51:47 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: geeman@best.com
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:51:47 -0800 (PST)
To: DataETRsch@aol.com
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Additional information about UDCM.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970109200218.006d59dc@best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Why are people so convinced that a uniform distribution in cyphertext
equates to security? Nonsense.


At 06:11 PM 1/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>{Please read this *entire* e-mail message.}
>
>compared. Subtle patterns where searched for. Binary character tallys where
>taken. IMDMP did *not* leave *any* repeating patterns in the test file that
>was used. In IMDMP, each of the 256 possible binary character combinations
>had an approximate count of  0.390625% of all of the 64 million bytes.
> 0.390625% is the best possible percentage. Are all of you out there
>satisfied?
>
>Jeremy K. Yu-Ramos
>President
>DataET Research
>Data Engineering Technologies
>
>





Thread