-1
$\begingroup$

I have been working in the vulnerabilities of the Two Time Pad. So i found in a lot of places, StackExchange included saying, that if two plain texts are encrypted (using XOR) with the same key the following is valid:

plaintext1 XOR plaintext2 = ciphertext1 XOR ciphertext2

Is there any proof about that, mathematical or otherwise, that the above exists always?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hints: ciphertextj = plaintextj XOR Pad. Properties of XOR. $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Nov 8 '15 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @fgrieu Sorry i did not understand. If you mean that plaintext XOR key = ciphertext i know that. Though what i need is a proof of the above as mentioned $\endgroup$ – jvor Nov 8 '15 at 11:43
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: What relations do you have at hand if you have two encryptions using the same key? $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Nov 8 '15 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ @SEJPM I am not exactly an expert on the subject, though the one that would come to mind is the one i want to prove. Also, the bits in the same position of both ciphertexts will be the same if original text is the same $\endgroup$ – jvor Nov 8 '15 at 12:12
6
$\begingroup$

We know, by the encryption rule for one-time pads, where $k$ is the re-used pad:

$p_1 \oplus k = c_1$ and $p_2 \oplus k = c_2$.

For $\oplus$ (xor) the following arithmetic is valid: $a \oplus a = 0$ for all $a$ (everything is its own inverse), which is clear from truth tables, e.g., and $a \oplus (b \oplus c) = (a \oplus b) \oplus c$, i.e. the operation is associative and $a \oplus b = b \oplus a$ for all $a,b$ (the order does not matter, i.e. the operation is commutative).

These properties should be familiar, and they show, among other things, that decryption of the one-time pad is the same operation as encryption: if $c_1 = p_1 \oplus k$, then $c_1 \oplus k = (p_1 \oplus k) \oplus k = p_1 \oplus (k \oplus k) = p_1 \oplus 0 = p_1$, so re-encrypting $c_1$ as it were, gives back $p_1$, which is a very convenient property.

Also $c_1 \oplus c_2 = (p_1 \oplus k) \oplus (p_2 \oplus k) = p_1 \oplus p_2 \oplus (k \oplus k)$ after re-arranging brackets (associative!) and shuffling (commutative) and the last term is $0$ again, so we are left with $c_1 \oplus c_2 = p_1 \oplus p_2$, as claimed. The re-used $k$ cancels out, in short. If we'd have used $k_1$ independent from $k_2$, we wouldn't have had such a relationship.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.