![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
BestCrypt, commercial on-the-fly disk encryption for MS Windows "respect" stringent governmental requirements [1].
Whatever it mean it something was coded in. Why you cover up this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please update this article to add a reference to DoxBox ( https://t-d-k.github.io/doxbox/ ) which is a relaunch of FreeOTFE. I am the maintainer of DoxBox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squte ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This article confuses 3 different types of 'deniable encryption' (only one of which is normally called that), viz:
The section on Malleable encryption also isn't much to do with 'malleable encryption' as defined in that article. It would be better to call it 'deniable authentication' and remove the link to 'malleable encryption'.
There should also be a section on practical problems with deniable encryption (as in the Schneier paper ref'd)
If no one has any objections, I'll update the article accordingly. Tdk at squte ( talk) 10:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence claiming enc'd data is generally detectable using a chi^2 test. The reference given has just a blank statement to that effect, and is biased. OTOH this reference http://www.devttys0.com/2013/06/differentiate-encryption-from-compression-using-math/ is more credible and gives evidence that it's indistinguishable from random data (as you'd expect). Tdk at squte ( talk) 10:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
—By adding decoy words to a plaintext, and transposing the result, one generates a ciphertext, which the intended reader will be able to properly reverse-transpose, but a cryptanalyst will face irreducible entropy: a list of plausible plaintext candidates. For example: let the plaintext be P = "We shall meet on Wednesday, at 7pm". The message writer will construct the following combination: P* = "We shall meet on Wednesday at 7pm # Sunday, Monday,... 1pm, 2pm,..... " and then transpose the words into a ciphertext C. The intended reader possesses the transposition-key, and performs a reverse-transposition, then she ignores everything right of the "#". A cryptanalyst, will find several keys that would reverse transpose C to several plausible plaintext candidates. For example: P' = "We Shall meet on Sunday, at 2pm"... For this deniability to work the transposition cipher must be 'complete' namely it must be able to encrypt any arbitrary permutation to any other arbitrary permutation. See more in https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GideonSamid ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
All three pages have source and notability problems. Rubberhose pages are both about deniable encryption and should merge to it to make one good page Softlem ( talk) 05:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
BestCrypt, commercial on-the-fly disk encryption for MS Windows "respect" stringent governmental requirements [1].
Whatever it mean it something was coded in. Why you cover up this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please update this article to add a reference to DoxBox ( https://t-d-k.github.io/doxbox/ ) which is a relaunch of FreeOTFE. I am the maintainer of DoxBox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squte ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This article confuses 3 different types of 'deniable encryption' (only one of which is normally called that), viz:
The section on Malleable encryption also isn't much to do with 'malleable encryption' as defined in that article. It would be better to call it 'deniable authentication' and remove the link to 'malleable encryption'.
There should also be a section on practical problems with deniable encryption (as in the Schneier paper ref'd)
If no one has any objections, I'll update the article accordingly. Tdk at squte ( talk) 10:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence claiming enc'd data is generally detectable using a chi^2 test. The reference given has just a blank statement to that effect, and is biased. OTOH this reference http://www.devttys0.com/2013/06/differentiate-encryption-from-compression-using-math/ is more credible and gives evidence that it's indistinguishable from random data (as you'd expect). Tdk at squte ( talk) 10:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
—By adding decoy words to a plaintext, and transposing the result, one generates a ciphertext, which the intended reader will be able to properly reverse-transpose, but a cryptanalyst will face irreducible entropy: a list of plausible plaintext candidates. For example: let the plaintext be P = "We shall meet on Wednesday, at 7pm". The message writer will construct the following combination: P* = "We shall meet on Wednesday at 7pm # Sunday, Monday,... 1pm, 2pm,..... " and then transpose the words into a ciphertext C. The intended reader possesses the transposition-key, and performs a reverse-transposition, then she ignores everything right of the "#". A cryptanalyst, will find several keys that would reverse transpose C to several plausible plaintext candidates. For example: P' = "We Shall meet on Sunday, at 2pm"... For this deniability to work the transposition cipher must be 'complete' namely it must be able to encrypt any arbitrary permutation to any other arbitrary permutation. See more in https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GideonSamid ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
All three pages have source and notability problems. Rubberhose pages are both about deniable encryption and should merge to it to make one good page Softlem ( talk) 05:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)