Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #4813
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Organization | Oration Gains |
| Subject | Re: bike locks and encryption |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| References | <144e68c8-e88b-47a4-af78-8129ad2557c7@googlegroups.com> <87sij0upte.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0DPYv.572258$ck2.339445@fx17.am4> <87d2a3vr6e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| Message-ID | <A%XYv.467551$Ym.178917@fx05.am4> (permalink) |
| Date | 2014-10-07 21:26 +0100 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>> RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Something occurred to me recntly - bicycle locks >>>> as examples of one way functions, so useful in >>>> encryption. That is, easy to compute in encryption, >>>> but intractable for decrytion, lacking the key. >>> >>> I don't think that's a good analogy for a one-way function. Although >>> all one-way functions have, in some very abstract sense, a "key" (the >>> function's inverse is, I suppose, a key) they are not, usually, >>> invertable with some small amount of data acting as a key. >> >> I think RSA is a counter-example, isn't it? (More on that in a >> second.) > > I think you (and the OP) might be confusing trap-door functions with > one-way functions. My understanding of a trap-door function is that it's easy to compute in one direction but hard to compute in the other without a crib (for example, RSA). My understanding of a one-way function is that it's easy to compute in one direction but hard to compute in the other without a crib (for example, RSA). So yes, I may well be confusing them. ;-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-06 23:28 -0700
Re: bike locks and encryption Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-10-07 11:53 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-10-07 16:24 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-10-07 21:26 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-10-08 01:34 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-07 23:16 -0700
Re: bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-07 23:27 -0700
Re: bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-07 13:57 -0700
Re: bike locks and encryption Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-10-07 21:21 +0000
Re: bike locks and encryption "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-07 22:33 +0100
Re: bike locks and encryption Jongware <jongware@no-spam.plz> - 2014-10-08 15:51 +0200
Re: bike locks and encryption Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-10-07 21:10 +0000
Re: bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-07 23:34 -0700
Re: bike locks and encryption Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-10-08 14:10 +0000
Re: bike locks and encryption RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-10 18:33 -0700
csiph-web