-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello again cypherpunks: Sorry to continue "beating a dead horse" here, but I forwarded a few C-punks' messages regarding the Elementrix "Power One-Time Pad" to this person, and I thought you might be interested in her (somewhat cryptic <g>) response. Forwarded message follows: ______________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 20:34:53 +0200 From: Maia Aron <maia@elementrix.co.il> To: liberty@gate.net Subject: Re: POTP
Hi, it took me a little while to respond; we've been getting a lot of inquiries following the Interop show.
The short answer is: everything that people are guessing we are, including the guesses mentioned in the cypherpunks info you attached, is not what we are. I.e., it's not an autokey cipher, it's not like DES, there is no way to track relationships between yesterday's and today's ciphertexts. The encryption is not done by using an encryption algorithm.
Unfortunately, and we really mean unfortunately, we can only reveal what "it is" to people who agree to a non-disclosure arrangement while we're patent pending. Otherwise we would have no problem revealing the whole method. So far, every international expert who has reviewed the method agrees (after many, many hours and days of trying to find holes) that POTP really does what we say it does.
You can share this with whomever you'd like. Sorry I can't say much more.
Regards,
Maia Aron Vice President, Marketing Elementrix Technologies Inc. 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
phone: 212-888-8879 fax: 212-935-3882 email: maia@elementrix.co.il
End of forwarded message. So, I guess we know what they *aren't*, but not what they *are*...Is this the first example (in modern history) of encryption that's *not* done by using an encryption algorithm, or am I just missing something? JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh iQCVAwUBMHrisW1lp8bpvW01AQEauQQAlFI8Xu3w1Zjo53rnejjp/UqVw9f9Gdfa I4/bHqnpsJHI+W+HPbCzjWHV30lNJzMW1wWDBNpqNmjOr5jYmYJN7x0SX8QrXmCT sZlrM0Pc+Pzc9OvsB/tw8T0bwXWPMi5b3qu5jQwHp5e+aujCdQRSr7digJscVhEN i+WwbMEPFa8= =Psa8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray Ray's Corolary to Murphy's Law: "You will be spared _NOTHING_." -- Peter C. Ray [my dad]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Key id. # E9BD6D35 James Milton Ray <liberty@gate.net> IANAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Help Phil! email zldf@clark.net or see http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately, and we really mean unfortunately, we can only reveal what "it is" to people who agree to a non-disclosure arrangement while we're patent pending. Otherwise we would have no problem revealing the whole method. So far, every international expert who has reviewed the method agrees (after many, many hours and days of trying to find holes) that POTP really does what we say it does.
Maybe you could name those experts who have inspected it - thanks. Kari
liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray) writes: Sorry to continue "beating a dead horse" here, but I forwarded a few C-punks' messages regarding the Elementrix "Power One-Time Pad" to this person, and I thought you might be interested in her (somewhat cryptic <g>) response.
Actually, no, and I'll tell you why. My only interest in this product is that you're flogging it as a one time pad, and just calling something a one time pad doesn't make it so. From all that's been exposed so far, it looks like it doesn't match the standard definition of a one time pad in standard cryptologic works. Maybe it's something <like> it, and maybe not -- but if they're saying it <is> a one time pad they should be prepared to prove it. Reading their warmed-over press releases doesn't interest me at all. Except for one thing, i.e. this line from the last blather:
The encryption is not done by using an encryption algorithm.
'Nuff said for now, I think. Jim Gillogly Mersday, 20 Winterfilth S.R. 1995, 17:05
Sorry to continue "beating a dead horse" here, but I forwarded a few C-punks' messages regarding the Elementrix "Power One-Time Pad" to this person, and I thought you might be interested in her (somewhat cryptic <g>) response. ...
Except for one thing, i.e. this line from the last blather:
The encryption is not done by using an encryption algorithm.
'Nuff said for now, I think.
Not quite enough for my taste. If this system can be uniquely initiated by a finite sequence of bits transferred between the two parties and can be used to encrypt more than that many bits, it is not a one-time-pad - period - full stop. By definition, the information content of a one-time-pad is one bit per bit of transmitted information. If a finite number of bits is enough to initialize this system, then by definition, it ceases to be a one-time-pad as soon as one more than that many bits have been transmitted using those bits as the initialization key. This is a direct result of information theory, and cannot be circumvented by any amount of wizardry or genius. Even if you found that information theory is palpably inconsistent, the definition of a one-time-pad (as defined by Shannon in his second most famous 1949 paper) is in terms of information theory, and therefore, the end of the theory is also the end of the definition of a one-time-pad. -- -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
participants (4)
-
fc＠all.net -
Jim Gillogly -
Kari Laine -
liberty＠gate.net