zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Fri Mar 20 09:11:21 EDT 2015
I abhor the term "perfect forward secrecy", as being inaccurate unless
an OTP is used for perfection -
- and unless then, remembering that for forward secrecy you have to
delete any working materials which have come into contact with plaintext
or key, you then kill the recipient ("I'd tell you but then I'd have to
kill you") -
- and unless, as you yourself know the contents of the message, so you
then kill yourself.
This is of course ridiculous, or at best over-enthusiastic.
I propose instead the term Full Forward Secrecy, and the corresponding
acronym FFS, to describe a system where an OTP is not used, and the
secrecy is based on some sort of computational complexity, whether real
or imagined, instead.
This arose in the context of the question "if you have good encryption
which is otherwise computationally forward-secret, is it still
forward-secret if the recipient keeps a copy of the message after
reception and initial reading?".
Of course, if the sender keeps a copy, the question is similar.
So, I propose the term - but I don't know quite what it should mean.
Today I saw a solar eclipse!!
Spring is sprung
The grass is riz
I wonder where
The birdies is?
"The bird is on the wing",
I heard - but
The wing is on the bird.
More information about the cryptography