5 ms·

I don't understand "You can then transmit messages... in plaintext." A message composed of SERHYTVXA etc is obviously encrypted. But another question: by how m

by fernly 13y ago

I don't understand "You can then transmit messages... in plaintext." A message composed of SERHYTVXA etc is obviously encrypted. But another question: by how much is the system weakened if the pad data is nonrandom? Because I was thinking how much simpler the key exchange would be, if instead of sharing pad-texts, you only shared links to texts that were available on the internet -- both parties to use as a pad the text of a particular Google Book, or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article.[edit below] Another option would be share only a "persistent identifier" to be used with [0]. [0] http://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced http://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced [edit] clearly you would not want to access the pad at any time near to transmitting a message encoded with that pad! You would download the pad data at some other time, preferably with another ID.

Ellipsis753 13y ago
If the pad data can be worked out or is known then the "encryption" is useless. If you use something like a book and the book used is unknown then it could still be found if someone can work out part of your message though guess work. "They sent a 5 letter word, I'm guessing it was "hello" therefore the first part of the book they used must be........". If you send the pad across the internet at all it could be recorded at many points along the way. While it still might not be cracked you'd certainly do better using proper encryption.