Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by coldtea on Sunday November 24, 2019 @12:28PM (#21621859)

Well, I read the original comment as being a: "here, K is the password, D XOR K is your results" idea -- based on that any D XOR K is technically a decryption, whether random stuff comes from the process.

If you intend K to provide "perfectly readable output", then

(1) if you actually produced the contents of D yourself to hide data, then you need to come up with some scheme so that K provides "perfectly readable output" and some alternative V provides D XOR V (or another decryption scheme) that gives you your actual secrets. I don't think it's that easy to have "perfectly readable data" on D XOR K plus have your secrets with another key. Except if you mean through steganography, but then K is not needed at all.

(2) if you were just send a random noise drive to "frame you" then you need access to the drive to come up with a K so that D XOR K decrypts to valid data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” passw... by nybble41 on Monday November 25, 2019 @06:59PM (#21634283)

This is a one-time pad. Given a ciphertext D it's trivial to come up with a key K that "decrypts" D to whatever plaintext P you want (K = D XOR P). This is why one-time pads are immune to brute-force search.

[ Parent | on HN ]