Re: bitwise exclusive-or

Article View: sci.crypt

Article #3374

#3374

From: newton2
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1987 08:46

12 lines
1402 bytes

Yes, the quantity of key is the same as the message, and yes, the
key channel must be by definition secure, but no, the key channel is
not an adequate substitute for the encrypted message channel. You 
transmit the key early, in *anticipation* of a time when you will have
a secret message to transmit in timely fashion. If you knew the message
from the beginning, you could courier it instead of the key, but then 
you wouldn't need an encrypted telcom link. Even if your message is as
simple as "read the message in the blue envelope which the courier
brought and act on it, while ignoring the message in the red envelope",
you need (1 bit of) securely transmitted key.

Doug Maisel

Technical Details

Message-ID: <2389@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2

References: <434@ethz.UUCP> <1338@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> <9112@duke.duke.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2
From: newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: bitwise exclusive-or
Message-ID: <2389@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 31-Jan-87 03:46:45 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.2389
Posted: Sat Jan 31 03:46:45 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Jan-87 20:24:28 EST
References: <434@ethz.UUCP> <1338@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> <9112@duke.duke.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu.UUCP ()
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 12
Keywords: one-time pad more timely than courier

Reply to Parent Message