Atom Smasher wrote:
>btw, what's the threat model where this is advantageous?
I can imagine it might be used for plausible deniability: if some law
enforcement agency would force you to decrypt the messsage, you could
claim you can't and you didn't read it anyway because it's corrupted.
Of cours
Am Dienstag, 13. Juni 2006 09:02 schrieb Samuel ]slund:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:55:54PM +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > No, it doesn't. You are still believing in security-by-obscurity
> > meaning that your additional "encryption" only works as long as you
> > and the recipient are the only one
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:55:54PM +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> No, it doesn't. You are still believing in security-by-obscurity meaning
> that your additional "encryption" only works as long as you and the
> recipient are the only ones who know the secret rule.
Please Ingo, _all_ encryption is
On Monday 12 June 2006 22:15, Tom Thekathyil wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for your response: that was for a trivial case :)
>
> Now let's try a curveball. We substitute lines 9 to 12 for the
> equivalent _somewhere else_ in the code, so it won't be a simple
> transform. This is based on a rule
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your response: that was for a trivial case :)
Now let's try a curveball. We substitute lines 9 to 12 for the
equivalent _somewhere else_ in the code, so it won't be a simple
transform. This is based on a rule that a message sent on the 12th
day of June would have certain p
If your modus operandi includes exchanging secret information outside
of normal channels (e.g., "change the case of the nth letter") you
would be better off exchanging more secure information than a single
change like that. For example - a second set of public keys. Encyrpt
your document twice,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:36:54AM +0200, Remco Post wrote:
>
> Brute force... trying every possible key on a message until the
>
Brute force both in the key length and the size of the alphabet.
>
> decrypted message makes sense. Since in theory
Am Montag, 12. Juni 2006 04:42 schrieb Tom Thekathyil:
> A wishes to send message to B.
>
> A encrypts message using B's key. Opens encrypted message and
> corrupts the file by altering one or more characters/adding redundant
> lines of code, e.g. changes case of first occurrence of 'T' in the
> co
Tom Thekathyil wrote:
> A wishes to send message to B.
>
In theory, any encrypted message is like completely random.
> Question: Is there in theory any way of breaking the corrupted
> encryption through brute force?
>
Brute force... trying every possible key on a message until the
decrypted me
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Tom Thekathyil wrote:
A wishes to send message to B.
A encrypts message using B's key. Opens encrypted message and corrupts
the file by altering one or more characters/adding redundant lines of
code, e.g. changes case of first occurrence of 'T' in the code. Saves
file an
A wishes to send message to B.
A encrypts message using B's key. Opens encrypted message and corrupts
the file by altering one or more characters/adding redundant lines of
code, e.g. changes case of first occurrence of 'T' in the code. Saves
file and sends to B.
B will get an error message when t
11 matches
Mail list logo
