Compression side channel

[Ben Laurie]

Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> At 11:11 AM 09/10/2001 +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
> >At 12:44 AM 9/9/2001 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >>Does using non-adaptive compression save the day?
> >
> >Huffman coding using a fixed code table is not a bad way to go. You can
> >even peek at the characteristics of the input and choose a table based on
> >that... having standardised tables for English text, intel machine code,
> >MS-word documents, C code, other languages, etc. Fax machines do something
> >like this, with a huffman code table conditioned on a set of standard
> >documents, but I'm not sure whether it is just a single table or a set of
> >"choose one of these".
> 
> G3 is a single table - it's the standard used for most fax machines,
> with 100x200 or 200x200 resolution.
> Not sure about G4, which has higher resolution,
> but I think that's the case for it also.

G4 includes ways to repeat the previous line with minor modifications,
but still uses Huffman encoding.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff



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