On Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:48:23 AM PDT, Marina Brown wrote: On 09/25/2017 02:38 AM, jim bell wrote: > On Sunday, September 24, 2017, 3:25:10 PM PDT, \0xDynamite > <[1]dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8/4/17, jim bell <[2]jdb10987@yahoo.com > wrote: >>> "Vernam cipher" > > >>YES! That is the cipher. I can't believe I forgot the name of it. > Geez, I'm just re-realizing all of my undergrad training. > > >>AFAICT, it is UNBREAKABLE if the keysize is at least half the size of > your plaintext. >>Marxos > > > > > My understanding is that the keysize ought to be as long as the message > to be encrypted. > > And yes, it is unbreakable... UNLESS you try to reuse the keys!!! > Google-search the word "Venona" to learn more. > > Jim Bell >Very very easy to implement too, though getting quality key material is a bit of a hassle. 75 years ago, that was true. Today, not. A year ago, I saw what looked like a good implementation of a random-number generator chip. This might have been it: [4]http://www.fdk.com/cyber-e/pi_ic_rpg100.html × (BUTTON) (BUTTON) 250 kbps is plenty for many applications, especially since the generator could run continuously, with the output stored away and used as needed. >I have considered filming rough water then taking the low bits and repacking them. In a continuously windy area, a camera aimed at a tree with leaves would work, too. >I wonder if low bits from the sounds in a chicken coop would work too. "Cluck you!!" B^) Jim Bell References 1. mailto:dreamingforward@gmail.com 2. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com 3. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com 4. http://www.fdk.com/cyber-e/pi_ic_rpg100.html