I stumbled upon your responses to the NYT article about the unbreakable crypto. I agree with your points and feel they are quite vaild. However, I'd like to toss something else out. In order for one to assure that the random number generator was authentic it would have to be trusted to an even greater extent, using an unbreakable system of its own, or perhaps the same system. It seems that this would develop a certain paradox of sorts. How does the user exemplify trust in the system? If another source was interceded or interposed in the way of the 'true' source, all one would have to do is make the random 'pattern' long enough and the encrypted data could be easily retrieved. The question is how do you ensure the trust of the generator. Satellites aren't fooproof. How can the unbreakable satellite encrypt itself? If this message has violated your rights in any way I do apologize, your address has not been added to any kind of list. This is a personal message. Sincerely, Dan Darden. ===== ----------------------------------- Contact me at ddarden@tamu.edu with questions concerning all of your information security needs. ----------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/