There is absoultely no doubt in my mind that cryptography can be a tremendous boon to the town in many different scenarios.
Cam
Agreed.Only if the decryption is not trivial.
True, but often this is built in to the system. For example, in the role-investigator scenario, the investigator and the investigee already share a private key...the role name known to both players. There's no need in this scenario even for a key exchange. And like Norinel mentions, achieving a correct transfer is also quite easy (in theory).And you need some way to pass the key to only the correct person.
Also true, but this basically reduces to being technically sophistacated enough to click on a hyperlink and paste in a large number.And that person needs to be technically sopisticated enough to decipher the code.
Yup, though the word "essentially" does require emphasis. First, any current cryptosystem (other than quantum cryptography) is susceptible to brute force given sufficient time and computing power. Second, no cryptosystem to date is proven to be unbreakable by some technique shorter than brute force. It'sThere are still essentially unbreakable public key systems, right?
Depending on how you choose to "encode" in this example, this is called the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, used prominently both with RSA and with Elliptic Curve Cryptography. This is a decent protocol, but it hinges on the difficulty of cracking the encoding. If I can brute force the cracking of your encryption, then it doesn't matter how fancy of a protocol you use.MMCL wrote:How about the box with two locks approach...
I have a message I want to send to mathcam (for example) so I use my procedure to encode it... I then display it in my post... mathcam then takes the encoded text and encodes it using his own procedure. He then displays the result. I then decode his result and post the message a 2nd time...
All mathcam needs to do now is decode the message one last time and he has the original text...