IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Security Forum / Two things.
Post #396,711
by a6l6e6x
Picture of a6l6e6x
11/30/14 6:25:12 PM
Reply
New Two things.
1. Use OTP once! Otherwise, it's NOT a one time pad.

2. OTP relies on having a truly random number as long the data you want to protect.

That brings me to the following quote:
“The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.”—Robert R. Coveyou

There have been "pseudo-random number generators" that were very insecure.
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
Post #396,713
by Ashton
11/30/14 6:35:47 PM
Reply
New Or in related puzzlements,
The generation of sane, viable societies is too important to be left to ordinary humans.

But I don't know where that Leaves us, in any next.. :-/
Post #396,718
by scoenye
11/30/14 8:06:17 PM
Reply
New It is mainly a key transport problem
Any electronic transport method is vulnerable in one way or another. The security of the OTP is reduced to the level of the method used to transport the key. That is why there still is no viable electronic OTP. Even the method I posted earlier still requires a secure physical meeting between each pair of messengers.
     geriactic brain needs some input regards encryption - (boxley) - (20) - Nov. 28, 2014, 10:51:03 PM EST
         First step in writing your own encryption algorithm ... - (drook) - (2) - Nov. 28, 2014, 11:21:37 PM EST
             And this... :-) -NT - (scoenye) - Nov. 29, 2014, 12:11:25 AM EST
             In other words: - (static) - Nov. 29, 2014, 06:37:04 AM EST
         It is different - (scoenye) - (9) - Nov. 29, 2014, 12:10:56 AM EST
             Ah, a usefull reply - (boxley) - (8) - Nov. 29, 2014, 09:21:58 AM EST
                 Hey, mine was useful! - (drook) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2014, 12:36:01 PM EST
                     Me too. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - Nov. 29, 2014, 01:03:33 PM EST
                 Something like this? - (scoenye) - (2) - Nov. 30, 2014, 10:54:57 AM EST
                     Love. It. Best hopeful-Aha! in a long time :-) - (Ashton) - Nov. 30, 2014, 06:26:29 PM EST
                     enough like it to require a licence :-( -NT - (boxley) - Nov. 30, 2014, 08:17:06 PM EST
                 What's wrong with cipher block chaining? -NT - (static) - (2) - Nov. 30, 2014, 05:51:37 PM EST
                     As used in SSLv3/TLS1.0 - (scoenye) - (1) - Nov. 30, 2014, 06:50:00 PM EST
                         Ah. Understood. -NT - (static) - Nov. 30, 2014, 07:10:38 PM EST
         A more generic tool... - (Another Scott) - (6) - Nov. 29, 2014, 09:35:36 AM EST
             good link, thanks - (boxley) - (5) - Nov. 29, 2014, 09:44:45 AM EST
                 There is only one unbreakable cypher - (pwhysall) - (4) - Nov. 29, 2014, 03:58:04 PM EST
                     my idea is to create an EOTP -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Nov. 29, 2014, 04:32:12 PM EST
                         Two things. - (a6l6e6x) - (2) - Nov. 30, 2014, 06:25:12 PM EST
                             Or in related puzzlements, - (Ashton) - Nov. 30, 2014, 06:35:47 PM EST
                             It is mainly a key transport problem - (scoenye) - Nov. 30, 2014, 08:06:17 PM EST

*gloat*
109 ms