🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <73247@cup.portal.com> Christopher_C_Lapp@cup.portal.com writes:
>I wonder if anyone has thought of including the key of a 
>message with the message, in such a way that the key of the 
>message was on the surface indistinguishable from the 
>message.  [...]

What you've got then, is "Security through Obscurity".  In reality, the
"key" of such a (poor) crypto system is *not* the one transmitted with the
message.  Rather, the key is simply knowing *how* to decript the message.

Generally, this method is shunned by those who know cryptography because it
offers poor security on a broad scale.  What I mean by this is that if any
large organization were to use it, there would be lots of opportunity for
someone "outside" to find out how it's done.  It would be just as risky as
having everyone in a large company use the very same password to access
company records...   Eventually, it'll "leak".

It's fine if you're just encrypting your own files and you never tell anyone
else about it, but it loses its appeal when you try to do anything else.
It's just too easy to give away a method.

Here's the test:  Can you give the source-code to the cracker, and still be
assured that the cracker won't be able to get in?  If not, then your *program*
is really your "key", and you've got security through obscurity.

So in effect, any such system should only be used where you'd use pig-Latin.

Rick Miller   <rick@ee.uwm.edu> | <rick@discus.mil.wi.us>   Ricxjo Muelisto
Occupation:  Husband, Father, WEPCo. WAN Mgr., Discus Sys0p, and  Linux fan