[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hidden encrypted messages
Derek Zahn says:
> ....................I've gotten a number of responses
> of the form "Why not just claim that an encrypted message is data?",
> but my original point was Plausible Deniability. That is, I was
> postulating an environment in which Big Brother has outlawed cryptography.
> Now, confronted with a confiscated message, the sender has to defend
> himself from the Inquisition. Can't just claim it's a sound file;
> the Inquisitor will want it played. The question I'm trying to answer
> is how to produce on demand a causal explanation of data (which actually
> contains an encrypted message) that satisfies an investigator and
> doesn't reveal the encrypted message. Some simple scheme like, "Uh,
> it's the result of my new random number generation algorithm" isn't
> likely to be *satisfying* and is certain to produce the response,
> "OK, let's see the algorithm."
Yes, a very valid point. But it seems to me, that Random Data
claim is the best, with the highest chances to keep one out of
trouble (if anything can :-).
The algorithm? Oh, sorry, but it's a HARDWARE random data generator!
And if it's truly good random gen, there are no patterns to track...
One can use it to create huge one-time pads, BTW... "Salt" some of
the encrypted (or plaintext :-) messages with those...
The only thing to be concerned of - the cipher [to be claimed a
random data] shouldn't be crackable, and SHOULDN'T have any
patterns! Or they could present an evidence, that the
data isn't a product of your random gen...
Uri [email protected] scifi!angmar!uri N2RIU
From cypherpunks-request Thu Mar 11 12:44:24 1993