You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] HexTree ago 

Any encryption that can be udecrypted and read is eventually crackable.

Well no, clearly one time pad is a case that is uncrackable.

0
0

[–] Fortune-5Billion ago  (edited ago)

In order to make a cipher that is unbreakable, it also needs to be un decryptable. (if you use a one time pad and throw away the key, the message will never be decrypted, but will also just be gibberish and also unusable. If you keep the key it can be found and thus used to decrypt the message.

A one time pad also has the problem of using a key as long as the message, and since the key either has to be in plaintext, or be encrypted in a breakable manor, (else regression until the previous statement is true). the key becomes breakable and therefore the message is breakable.

if the key wasnt generated randomly, then it is mathematically breakable via cryptology.

Mathematically unbreakable and theoretically unbreakable are different ideas.

A one time pad is the closest I know of to being unbreakable, as the only known solution is "get the key," but that is still a viable solution.

0
0

[–] HexTree ago  (edited ago)

as the only known solution is "get the key," but that is still a viable solution.

I disagree that this is a viable solution. In polynomial time, the cryptographer can generate a second key which generates any sensible message he wants. If asked to surrender his key, he can hand over that second key. It would then be impossible for the adversary to prove that this was the wrong key, and it would also be impossible for him to ever know what the real message was.

If you are assuming that the adversary has the power to find any key the cryptographer has ever made, and be 100% sure that he has made no other keys, then yes, the best he can do is accumulate a finite set of keys. I don't consider this power to be a reasonable one though, certainly not in real-world applications. And even then, he still would not know what the message is, only that it is one of the finite available messages. I understand the term 'breakable' to mean that the adversary is able to say what the original message was. Just saying that it is one of several possibilities doesn't meet that criteria (even if it's adequate enough to charge someone with a crime).