Le jeu 19/12/2002 � 15:44, Emile van Bergen a �crit : > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 03:26:13PM +0100, PUYDT Julien wrote: > > > Le jeu 19/12/2002 � 15:18, Daniel Burrows a �crit : > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:17:23AM +0100, PUYDT Julien <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > > > Le mer 18/12/2002 � 18:45, Niels M�ller a �crit : > > > > > use some other construction that is secure even if the enemy has > > > > > infinite > > > > > computational power > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure it isn't possible: > > > > > > One-time pads are definitely secure against any mathematical attack. > > > (if you assume that the bits of the key are perfectly random) > > > Basically, given an encrypted message, every key/plaintext combination > > > is equally likely. > > > > Cool. How do you send your key (that is as long as your message, btw)? > > Well, it's definitely useful in scenarios where you want to give your > message to two messengers, that are not allowed to know the contents > when they're separate; only when they come together will the plaintext > be available. > > Effectively you split the message in two parts, each of which is useless > without the other.
Did I not write another mail after a chat with wagi, to make clear in which conditions my sentence applies? ;-) Snark on #hurd, #hurdfr
