Unbreakable? (fwd)

[Nicholas Brawn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't such a system feasible by:

1. Having the network infrastructure available to support the continuous 
traffic loads.
2. Having a suitable RNG source that can cope with the reseeding/etc 
requirements of encrypting bulk data.
3. Having a mechanism to insert genuine information into these massive 
streams of data.

I suppose the issue is communicating to the third party which part of 
the data contains the interesting stuff. From what Rabin is saying, it 
appears that the increased security is achieved by the third party not 
knowing what is important and what isn't. How you communicate this with 
your trusted third party is the problem. You can't simply send a 
transmission when a new section of interesting stuff is coming through, 
because then the evil folk can simply watch for the notification, then 
capture that section of the traffic.

Perhaps you could send a transmission that says "in x bytes time for the 
next x bytes, is the next message". That would include some latency that 
the evil third party can't reliably interperet. But does that work for 
frequent transmissions?

Seems interesting nevertheless.

Nick

--
Real friends help you move bodies.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com