This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
I am not familiar with the referenced paper, so I may be missing something, but the "plaintext" description of this "cryptosystem" sounds a lot like an OTP to me. Can anyone explain why this is NOT an OTP with another name? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.28.214.112 (
talk)
19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)reply
It definitively is not snake oil. Snake oil would mean that the authors make unfounded claims. This is not the case here. The papers use well defined assumptions and prove their results. The assumptions used in those papers are quite unconventional. E.g. the bounded-storage model assumes that there is a commonly accessible data stream that produces more bits than anyone can store. Such assumptions may make the resulting cryptosystem unpractical for most/all real-world applications, but that does not mean it snake oil.
81.62.29.213 (
talk)
16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Sketchy at best
The Article describes a (rather clever) way to have "one time pads". Now, if anybody acts upon some information gained from secret communication, they'd communicate ("make public") the information that they had this information. So the point is kind of moot. That is, up to bullshit.