Bingology - The Blog of Aaron 'BingoBoingo' Rogier

ADD7A9A28F85E5EF1F51904F309BB8D7F3251143
About | Contact | PGP Public Key | Archive
« Why Fractional Reserve Can't Work in Bitcoin
Saturday NCAA Betting Picks »

Theoretical versus Actual Security

Once up a time, in 1882 and again in 1917, a theoretically perfect cipher was developed. That it was theoretically perfect was proven in a classified report released by Claude Shannon in 1945 which became publicly available in 1945. The system in question is the classic One-Time Pad.

While "perfect" it is extremely problematic in practice. Compared to modern ciphers which can be implemented with comparatively short keys, a one-time pad system requires a key as long as the text to be encrypted. The contents of the one time pad additionally must be both truly random and unknown, so you can't just consult your copy of the classic A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates.1 Additionally once a portion of the pad has been used to encrypt something, it must never be used again. Further presenting obstacles to the secure use of one time pads is the need for a physical exchange of the pads between the communicating parties, an electronic exchange already drops the security of the pad to merely being as secure as whatever encryption protects the pad in transit, which defeats the point of having a one time pad. Marcus Ranum has a decent FAQ on the subject of one-time pad usage.

Practical implementations of one-time pad systems have been broken numerous times over the course of their history. During World War II a number of German messages were broken when the random number source they used was found to actually be producing predictable output. During the Cold War reuse of some older one-time pads by the KGB created circumstances where British and American Intelligence agencies were able decode a number of messages old and new. There have likely been an untold other number of instances where pads had been surreptitiously copied, stolen, or replaced.

  1. You do have a copy of this don't you? [↩]

This entry was posted on Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 4:45 a.m. and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

 

It's still a pleasure to read bb prose. Both well researched and well written...

- Mircea Popescu

Recent Posts

  • Uruguay-SSR And The Hallucinated Seige
  • Introducing "The Montevideo Standard"
  • Qntra: A Plan For Action
  • A Homework Assignment From Diana_Coman: Trawling Ancient PMs Seeking What Worked For Early Qntra And Where I'm At On Scripting A Conversion Engine
  • Outreach Automation: A Call For Bids
  • Week 6 2020 Review - With Some Reflections On The Subject Of Feedback And Encountering Bots Blogging For Bots Nest
  • Photos From The Archives - January 20, 2011
  • Week 5 2020 Review - A Start To A Start
  • An Onramp For Contributing To Qntra - On Qntra
  • Week 4 2020 Review - Turning To Qntra

Recent Comments

  • Joe on Sports Team Fandoms as a Model Organism for Understanding Discourse
  • Alaskan Thunder Fuck on That One Agricultural Product And Uruguay
  • Aaron 'BingoBoingo' Rogier on Qntra: A Plan For Action
  • Aaron 'BingoBoingo' Rogier on Some FG Samples And Test Results
  • Mohammed nawar on Some FG Samples And Test Results
  • BetrugsRuehrerVow on Ceviche Theory And Practice
  • Aaron 'BingoBoingo' Rogier on Introducing "The Montevideo Standard"

Feeds

  • Posts RSS
  • Comments RSS


Tip Jar: 15eVXAW7k8uKc5moDFUSc9Y3jmHFAenNXo