IPG Algorith Broken!

[wichita at cyberstation.net]

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Perfect is a better term. Strictly speaking it is because there is no 
> > finite unicity distance (the amount of ciphertext with which the 
> > cipher can theoretically be broken). So, stricly speaking, for a given 
> > message C and a prospective pad, P, out of a set of N pads which may 
> > or may not be correct:
> > 
> > P(P|C) = N^-1
> 
> What does it mean?
> 
Yes, McPuff, what does it mean. Like all of your other pabulum, it does not
mean anything that has any significance to anyone living or yet to live.
I also greatly appreciate you defining unicity distance for me, I have
always wanted to know that.

With kindest regards,

Don Wood