Natanael writes: > Will you attempt to model human shuffling too and see how it affects > analysis? Is there maybe any existing work on that too reuse? I'd like to > know what the minimum requirement would be for a human to achieve a secure > shuffle for these ciphers (in case any of these ciphers would actually be > secure enough given a proper shuffle).
The most famous is probably Bayer and Diaconis (1992): http://statweb.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/bayer92.pdf A classic NYT report on this research (prior to its formal publication): http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/09/science/in-shuffling-cards-7-is-winning-number.html -- Seth David Schoen <sch...@loyalty.org> | No haiku patents http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | means I've no incentive to FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150 | -- Don Marti _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
