Re:"Unbreakable" Encryption Almost Certainly Isn't
by hueving on Tuesday April 08, 2014 @11:59AM
(#7554186)
>My only point was that talking about one-time-pads as "unbreakable" encryption is not a useful discussion, since "unbreakable" and "encryption" need to be better defined.
No they don't. You are receiving negative feedback because you are trying to adjust definitions that have been well-defined by the crypto community. When talking about the security of an encryption algorithm, the key distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop conflating the two.
>If we expand the definition of "encryption scheme" sufficiently to allow transmission of secrets outside of cryptographic channels, then OTP is not even close to the only unbreakable system.
Would you care to share with us some of these other unbreakable systems? Remember, the keys are the only thing that can be transmitted outside of the channel and they cannot be based on the information being encrypted.
No they don't. You are receiving negative feedback because you are trying to adjust definitions that have been well-defined by the crypto community. When talking about the security of an encryption algorithm, the key distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop conflating the two.
>If we expand the definition of "encryption scheme" sufficiently to allow transmission of secrets outside of cryptographic channels, then OTP is not even close to the only unbreakable system.
Would you care to share with us some of these other unbreakable systems? Remember, the keys are the only thing that can be transmitted outside of the channel and they cannot be based on the information being encrypted.