h a l f b a k e r yIt's not a thing. It will be a thing.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
You work on brute force methods with your super computers
and web based world wide efforts only to discover that you
have two versions of information and you'll never know which
is the correct one.
For top secret cases, you'll have hundreds of decrypted
messages none of which you are sure
is the one intended for
the receiver.
How the receiver knows without ever being compromised, is
another question for the other half.
Of course no messages can have been passed between the two
previously - otherwise this whole thing would be unnecessary.
Decrypt anything ... to anything
Decrypt_20anything_..._2e_20to_20anything
[Loris, Nov 09 2015]
[link]
|
| |
I would think that if the receivier has a method to discern which message is true, then the attacker can somehow acquire that method also. |
|
| |
In some ways it is just a double encryption. The first level is the //encryption// that your //brute force methods// are trying to crack. The second is a rather weak form of encryption, in that it presents two messages in plain text of which one is the message to be encoded. |
|
| |
Possible methods of derypting that second insanely weak "encoding" would be one-time-pad-style, i.e. you have both agreed in advance that today's message will be the second if the pair (or the 23rd of the 100 in your //top secret case//. |
|
| |
Another possible method is a kind of "public key" whereby the recipient broadcasts a secret code that indicates which of the two messages should be genuine. |
|
| |
If you added "fuzzy logic" you could be even more annoying
to a would-be message-cracker. "1.5) Maybe buy shares in
Apple" |
|
| |