**Next message:**Tom WSMF: "RE: Does "Goodbye Netscape 4.x" mean "Goodbye Netscape"?"**Previous message:**Lisa Dusseault: "RE: in shock"**In reply to:**kents@trajecta.com: "RE: Crypto"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

kents@trajecta.com wrote:

*> This post and and the jb "essentially a one-time pad" notion, rather
*

*> 'universal one-time pad' notion are interesting...
*

*>
*

*> Rabin said the math to prove his discovery is 'hard'. The one-time pad
*

*> solution has been proven secure, under the assumption pads are not
*

*> compromised. Is it really that hard to prove that a time-stamped stream of
*

*> non-repeating random bits is the same as a universal one-time pad and that
*

*> said pad cannot be compromised?
*

I haven't tried to prove this formally, but as you imply this doesn't seem like

rocket science. I suppose the trickiness involved here would be in proving the

security of sharing a sampling schedule. I'm not sure how one would go about

that.

jb

**Next message:**Tom WSMF: "RE: Does "Goodbye Netscape 4.x" mean "Goodbye Netscape"?"**Previous message:**Lisa Dusseault: "RE: in shock"**In reply to:**kents@trajecta.com: "RE: Crypto"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:00 PDT
*