139 reputation
8
bio website none.seriously
location Switzerland
age 30
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen Aug 12 at 13:15

Physicist.


Aug
14
comment What is the actual difference between security through obscurity and true encryption?
@Maeher sorry, I misread your comment. I'd actually accept it as an answer...
Aug
14
comment What is the actual difference between security through obscurity and true encryption?
@Maeher that's my very question, is encryption basically proven STO with the obscurity being the secret key?
Aug
14
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
@Thomas Thanks for the clarification. I think this is an important preposition to countering traffic analysis. One should also keep John's point in mind, that permanent communication may make it easier to determine who are communicating with, should that be worth keeping secret...
Aug
14
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
@Thomas Won't the worst-case attacker also know the garbage-generator and can then by reproducing it deduce from deviations that a transmission occurred? Of course if one assumes the garbage is coupled to a truly random generator, that is indeed not possible. So whether this is STO or not depends on the garbage generator's randomness, correct?
Aug
14
asked What is the actual difference between security through obscurity and true encryption?
Aug
14
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
Thanks, the pizza example is great! Of course one could permanently use a public transmission (i.e. order pizza for every household...) - that way, everyone knows you communicate, but there is practically no way to determine who actually decrypts the data. Which may turn out to be a disadvantage of course, since a leak will then be just as difficult to backtrack...
Aug
14
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
Ok, I checked Wikipedia: A cryptosystem should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge. [...] The enemy knows the system [...] is called Shannon's maxim. Do I understand it correctly that your point is, as long as the actual data encryption works, adding garbage is just security through obscurity? In that case I don't understand the downvotes, it sounds like a valid point to me.
Aug
13
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
Well, I spotted only the symptom while you removed the cause first and then wondered about the cough :-7 Anyway you're right that the garbage shouldn't be encoded, while the "correct" garbage might allow keeping actual data transmission times sufficiently secret
Aug
13
comment Time Capsule cryptography?
Finally a solution involving uncheatable physical time
Aug
13
awarded  Scholar
Aug
13
awarded  Supporter
Aug
13
comment K out of N encryption
+1 since I just wanted to ask the same question...
Aug
13
comment Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
Thanks for your answer - re "How so?" I only thought of the implication of encrypting the garbage as well, leading to the KPA, instead of simply considering the smart way™ of just using random data of entropy comparable to the encrypted data... I.e. your reply to sending encrypted pseudo-random data already makes by KPA-statement superfluous.
Aug
13
awarded  Student
Aug
13
asked Is a continuous stream of encrypted data embedded in garbage more or less secure than only encrypting the data?
Aug
13
awarded  Autobiographer