# Tag Info

0

One of many considerations is that if attacker is somehow able to breake one key, he can also break all others. Strenght of all keys is than same as strenght of weakest key exchanged in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_key

1

The scheme as you describe it in itself may be secure in some (especially) theoretical environment. However, I don't suggest to use it, because any attempt to use of values passed between the peers can possibly undermine the security of the scheme as can e.g. insecure RNGs. I have expressed a few concerns below. I'm bit concerned about calling the scheme ...

4

Well, for one thing, you are not using a "One Time Pad". A "One Time Pad" means, by definition, that someone generates a pad of numbers using true randomness (and not algorithmicly), and that no potential adversary has any information on what that pad may contain. Then, that pad is given to both the sender and the receiver, and then the sender uses it to ...

0

What, exactly, are your trying to accomplish with this construction? Yes, you're correct in that, given a sequence of messages $m_0, m_1, m_2, \dotsc$ and a fixed ciphertext $c$ (assumed to be all of the same length), we can easily calculate a sequence of keys $k_i = c \oplus m_i$ such that $k_i \oplus m_i = c$. However, I don't see any way to get a useful ...

Top 50 recent answers are included