hod applies for the noise application/removal.
> Den 13 jun 2013 17:31 skrev "Leandro Meiners" :
>
> Koenig's idea is interesting, and with a small twist I think could have
>> worked. If instead of only applying noise at the receiving end, noise was
>> first applied by
Koenig's idea is interesting, and with a small twist I think could have
worked. If instead of only applying noise at the receiving end, noise was
first applied by the sender, then the recipient applies his own noise and
sends it back to the sender, who then subtracts his original noise and
sends it
On 11/02/2011 06:13 PM, Jon Callas wrote:
>
> I think I understand where you're going. However, in the general case, as
> Marsh and Greg have pointed out, there are length issues, etc. that you'd
> want to at the very least hash the length + the message. Very likely more
> tweaks are needed,
sure of how to factor this into the reasoning as
there are probably cases where an example can be found the other way around.
Am I making any sense?
Thanks,
Leandro.-
On 11/02/2011 04:33 PM, Jack Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 04:25:30PM -0300, Leandro Meiners wrote:
>> Hi List
Hi List!
I was wondering if anybody could give me some pointers as to papers or
books that discuss the advantages/disadvantages of computing an HMAC of
a message versus previously computing a hash of the message and then
calculating the HMAC of the hash.
My initial thoughts are that there isn't an
