sdw at lig.net
Thu Nov 12 18:33:37 PST 2009
Lucas Gonze wrote:
>> Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>> How about a bandwidth price [of SSL]? There must be a bandwidth increase or
>>> there wouldn't be any chaff in the stream.
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Stephen D. Williams
>> I don't follow. The bandwidth usage should only increase slightly
>> (key/certificate/negotiation overhead), minus any compression being missed
>> out on, except it should already be compressed and will be before
> I was thinking that there must be chaff in the encrypted stream to
> conceal the length of the source document. But now that I think about
> it that doesn't really make sense.
There is such a concept, "cover traffic", which was apparently used in
some DoD Cold War-era communications. However it's not really used
in any usual communications, especially not at the casual SSL/TLS level.
There is a kind of non-encryption encryption called "Wheat and Chaff"
also, different idea.
More information about the FoRK