🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17939.Sep2300.39.3792@virtualnews.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep20.195136.8642@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
|> >  As far as I can tell, the whole point of cryptography is to be
|> >  able to restrict information to only those who are intended to
|> >  have it.
|> 
|> That description is far too broad. You cannot singlehandedly restrict
|> information to a chosen recipient, because he can in turn give the
|> information to someone else. You pose an impossible problem; is it a
|> surprise that there are no solutions?

Indeed. I've been making this point regarding anti-piracy devices for
some time. Even if Videocipher, for example, had not been broken there
would have been no way to prevent someone from taping the output of a
legitimate decoder and selling it or giving it away. The same is
undoubtedly true for software packages, at least those running on
standard general purpose machines. If you can't trust the authorized
user, then all bets are off.

Phil