First of all, I would like to sincerely apologize for my personal attacks on Perry. It is the first time that I have ever done that and I apologize for wasting you time and mine in that regard. He is obviously going to try to pontificate and rehash the old forever. Accordingly, to paraphrase Chief Joseph, "from where the sun now sits, I will fight Perry Metzger no more, forever." I further apologize for any offense that you feel that I may have caused. As to other matters: Instead of replying to the attacks being fabricated by Perry and other I have opted to recapitulate the matter at hand as perspicaciously as my limited abilities permit. As we know, Shannon was not a prolific writer. We also know that IT has not advanced very far during the 50 years since Shannon's nascent ground breaking work. Why? Because of the very issues that are at the heart of this matter. The differences between black, white and all the multitude hues of grey in between. I am extremely skeptical, and believe many readers may be too, of people that go around flaunting their understanding of Shannon, entropy and its application in absolute unequivocal mathematical terms. I hold that such a position, except in terms of delimiters, does not reflect an understanding of Shannon's impartations but au contraire, it is evidential proof that they do not have any real appreciation of Shannon at all. That is in no way intended to denigrate Shannon's very important contribution to our endeavors. I embrace the predicate that Shannon in terms of mathematical certainty has only defined the boundary conditions of the playing field within which we must play our games. If we stray outside that field, we are errant in the absolute sense. If we however play within those mathematical certain boundaries, we may be in error for other reasons, but Shannon cannot be cited as the casual agent. The recondite "parti pris" hijacking of the definition of the term OTP on the basis of conflict with Shannon is ludicrous, when such usage is apodictically within Shannon's delimiters. I have witnessed several definitions of an OTP which I maintain are entirely consistent with Shannon. Among such are: An encryption where any ciphertext may in fact be an an encrypted expression of any plaintext of the same or lesser length; or an encryption where the only information obtainable from the ciphertext is the maximum plaintext length; and so forth. All of these definitions have the essential quality that at the bit level, they can be reduced down to the equation: Pb xor Ub = Cb where Pb is a Plaintext bit, Ub is an Unknown bit and Cb is the resultant Ciphertext bit. Of course the combining form is normally XOR, but could be table lookup, modulo additive, or other. The important thing is that so long as only Cb is known, it is impossible to determine either Pb or Ub. If somehow the Ubs can be subtracted or cancelled out, as for instance by any discoverable reusage of Ub, even in a derivative form, then you may be able to recover some or all of the Pbs. The assertion that an Ub must be an Rb, a truly Random bit, is irrelevant ideology unless there exists the means to convert the Unknown bit, Ub, into a Known bit, Kb. That is the sublime basis of the IPG algorithm, which is to generate a stream of "unknown bits" which cannot be analytically reconstituted in the absence of the OTP generator key, and possibly other related key like parameters. The additional caveat of course is that the key cannot be guessed, nor can it be derived from brute force methodologies, both of which are patently impossible with the IPG algorithm. You do not have to be a Stephen Hawking to comprehend why that is a fact; each of you, with possible minor exceptions, will be able to discern that because it quickly becomes self evident as you ply the algorithm. There are those who will advance the contention that the ciphertext cannot in fact represent any possible plain text. That is incontestably true. In fact with reasonably long ciphertexts, say for example an encrypted FAX, unlike a hardware sourced OTP, there will only be one meaningful plain text that can be derived from the resultant ciphertext. Does that mean that a given ciphertext might not represent any plain text of that same, or lesser, length? One would think so, since it obviously cannot. The problem being though, is exactly how do you go about proving that any given plain text cannot be represented by a known ciphertext. There are two prongs to such a proof, both of which must be substantiated in any specific case at hand:. 1. Inclusionary Proof - the one most frequently advanced alone, which simply stated says that since each encryptor stream may represent any possible encryptor stream of that same length, then the ciphertext may be the XOR product of any plaintext of same said length. Obviously, a hardware sourced OTP DOES meet that proof. Also. it is patently evident that the IPG software OTP DOES NOT meet the inclusionary proof test. 2. Exclusionary Proof - which is equally valid, and simply stated consists of two propositions: A. Can any plaintext be encrypted with the OTP? Obviously the answer is YES for BOTH both hardware sourced OTPs and the IPG software sourced OTPs. B. If 2.A is true, is it possible to exclude any plaintext possibility? Obviously in the case of hardware sourced OTPs, no plain text can possibly be excluded. What about the IPG software OTPs? . One method that you could theoretically be used to exclude a possible plaintext for the software OTP, would be to by brute force try all possible keys, until the correct one is obtained. That however, would be difficult to say the least, as a matter of fact it is impossible: If every subatomic particle in our known universe was a Googol, 1 with 100 zeroes after it, of Cray T3E computers - and each of them had been brute forcing a partition of the possibilities at the rate of 1 Googol of them per picosecond which could not be done - but assume that it could - and they had been doing so since the Big Bang say 20 billion years ago - and they were to continue to do so for the next 20 billion years, that is beyond the life expectancy of our solar system/galaxy, and perhaps the universe, then approximately 10^322 of the possible OTPs would have been tried. Thus it would still take 10^34000 times as long as that to try all of the possibilities - that is they would have tried only one part in 1 with 34000 zeroes after it - not theoretical infinity by any means, but a very, very large extra-astronomical number. Brute force is patently impossible. . Another possibility might be to guess it - anyone recognizes that would not be practical, and how would you know that you were right. All of the IPG OTP generator, aka Encryption, keys are themselves OTPs. . Another possibility would to be to analytically exclude the invalid possibilities. As stated previously, and as you can discover for yourself, this reduces itself back down to to the exact equivalent of the brute force method set out above. With the algorithm, there is no difference between analytically exclusion and brute forcing - they are one and the same. So in fact, any known ciphertext may indeed be an encryption of any plaintext of that same, or lesser, length, because you cannot prove that it is not a specific plaintext. Some will contentiously assert that the key and other parameters might be hacked. While we include within the system facilitators that reduce that risk to a minimum, and to near zero if you use simple precautions, it is true that the hacking possibility exists. However, that possibility exists for RSA, PGP, hardware sourced OTPs, or any other form of security or encryption. We are better positioned in that regard than others but in terms of the human element, as we all know, there is no such thing as perfection. With warmest regards, Don Wood