# How to decrypt unusual Many Time Pad

How does one decrypt the many time pad:

($R$ is a random string, $C$ is ciphertext, $P$ is plaintext)

$R_0 \oplus R_1 = C_0$

$R_2 \oplus R_1 = C_1$

$P_0 \oplus R_1 = C_2$

assuming that $R_n$ are perfectly random pads, plaintext is writing and $C_n$ are the encrypted pads. The key $R_1$ is used three times but it doesn't seem like Crib Dragging (the solution I've seen described to decrypt many time pads) would work (edit: to retrieve $R_0$, $R_2$, and $P_0$ or even just $P_0$) since the other values that $R_1$ is added to are random. Is there something I'm missing?

• Hint: rewrite "random[0] xor random[1] = cipher[0]" as "(all-zero plaintext) xor (random[0] xor random[1]) = cipher[0]". is this really a many-time pad? Do cipher[0] and cipher[1] actually carry any information, or are they in fact statistically independent from random[1]? Write down the probabilities on paper to make sure. May 3, 2015 at 5:13
• Adding an all zero plaintext makes no sense. $R_0 and$R_2 are the information being carried by $C_0$ and $C_1$ and the goal is to retrieve them and $P_0$ or failing that retrieve just $P_0$. Since $R_0$, $R_1$, and $R_2$ are just theoretical values defined as random the probabilities should have a perfectly even distribution, $R_1$ should be statistically independent from $C_0$. May 3, 2015 at 20:58
• Both $C_0$ and $C_1$ serve no purpose at all. In order to decrypt and retrieve $P_0$, all you need is $R_1$. So if we assume the key contains $R_1$, I can decrypt even if I only get $C_2$ and not $C_1,C_2$. Sending random things alongside actual information does not mean it is any different than the original scheme.
– tylo
May 4, 2015 at 11:15
• It is assumed in the one time pad that the key, in this case $R_1$ is perfectly secret and unknown. In this case that is extended to $R_n$. Note this is not a question about decryption by the intended receiver but decryption by an unintended third party. May 4, 2015 at 16:51

This cannot be used to compromise $P_0$. Suppose that, instead of generating $C_0$ and $C_1$ as $R_0\oplus R_1$ and $R_2\oplus R_1$, the attacker instead picked $C_0$ and $C_1$ at random from the set of bit strings the length of $C_2$. This situation is indistinguishable from yours; in both cases, $R_0$ and $R_2$ are independent and follow a uniform probability distribution, and the same is true for $C_0$ and $C_1$. If you can compromise $P_0$ in your case, you can compromise it if the sender had actually generated $C_0$ and $C_1$. But that would mean that sending two completely random strings alongside an OTP message somehow helps compromise the message. Obviously, that's not true; the attacker could otherwise create his own random strings and break the OTP that way.