-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 25 Jan 1995 Michael Handler wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 1995 Louis Cypher wrote:

...

In recent discussions, the consensus was that message reordering was superior to (and the actual intent of) latency. Reordering is not sufficient, a form of latency is required to make it effective.

I have literally hundreds of messages archived from the CP list of several months back where Eric Hughes repeatedly states that reordering, not latency, is the key. Reordering of a sufficient magnitude will introduce latency inherently. Otherwise you are still vulnerable to traffic analysis (which is an art, not a science, remember).

-- Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com>

If you read my analysis with more care, you will note that I do not argue that latency is superior to reordering, nor that it should be used in place of reordering. Reordering is far superior to latency. My point is that pure reordering is vulnerable to attack. It is less vulnerable if combined with latency. Also note that this was a repost of a message I sent to the list some months ago. I sent it because it seemed similar to the work that Wei Dai has been posting. -Louis Cypher -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLyiy0qyHUAO76TvRAQF6qAQAk6IDl+UknPQ+c6hbmPvlgCtF2xwG0KZ3 aUXiuv/XJ5e5prRwLQ4X6rOUSflT2f+mRPO4fveVmWePWcr8BtV6LUQM+qJOLe5k Ay7CD+OGN9ni9EhRbIg3Sgdv6yB8cX2CpdMSByFD8J9rM240UWqSt/DgNQIlkTtC Jx+0NQP80QA= =aKOE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----