Re: IPG Algorith Broken!

[wichita@cyberstation.net]

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, The Deviant wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 wichita@cyberstation.net wrote:
> 
> > No correct period, for the same reason. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, an
> > OTP is an OTP is an OTP.
> 
> And IPGs algorithm is not OTP, so what you're saying is irrelevant.
> 
> > More dumbest information, from FAT BRAIN. If an OTP is used more than
> > once, it is not an OTP by definition. Plaintext xor Plaintext, even in
> 
> Correction.  If I generate a completely random number, and use it in my
> pad, and then generate another random number, and the 2 randoms happen to
> be the same, they are still perfectly valid pads; as long as the numbers
> were truly random.  Don't get me wrong -- its still stupid to use the same
> one twice, and it defies the point, but it is not "not an OTP by
> definition".
>
>
Correction, an OTP means a One Time Pad. If it is used more than once, it
is not a One Time Pad. The likelihood of a duplicate random number series 
of any significant length of course is very remote. If it did occur and 
you were able to  to XOR the resultant ciphertexts together, partial or
complete compromise might be possible. An OTP means one time use period,
why call it a One Time Pad, why not call it a Random Number Series or some
other appellation.

This is just another example or more pendant pap. Obviously, you like
Paul, do not know what you are talking about. You have read some
textbooks and think that makes you are an expert. I suggest that you take
some time off and learn some IT and what an OTP is. It most certainly is
not two identical random number series. 

> 
> > derivative forms. Like so much of his dribble, that paragraph contains 
> > some words but I challenge anyone to tell us what it means. It simply
> > does not say anything which translates into anything meaningful.    
> 
> Stop describing what you write.
> 
> > Frequently, you fill in some, and maybe even all of the plaintext, if you
> > have part of the plain text, for example if you have the partial signature
> > of a message emanating from the White House of:
> > 
> >        Wi      Jef            on
> > 
> > You might reasonably conclude that the missing characters could be filled
> > in to be: 
> >         
> >        William Jefferson Clinton
> > 
> > 
> > Two plaintexts xored together can reveal much more than you might think.
> > 
> 
> This is, as they say, completely irrelevant.
> 

Not nearly as irrelevant as your meaningless dribble.

> > Don Wood
> 
>  --Deviant


With Kindest regards,

Don Wood