[19768] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: thoughts on one time pads
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Fri Jan 27 16:13:40 2006
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:11:27 -0700
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Cc: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>, Dave Howe <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <43DA751B.3000008@av8n.com>
John Denker wrote:
> One drawback with this is that you have to destroy a whole
> disk at a time. That's a problem, because if you have a
> whole disk full of daily keys, you want to destroy each
> day's key as soon as you are through using it. There
> are ways around this, such as reading the disk into volatile
> RAM and then grinding the disk ... then you just have to make
> sure the RAM is neither more volatile nor less volatile than
> you wanted it to be. That is, you use the disk for *distribution*
> but not necessarily for intermediate-term storage.
is there any more reason to destroy a daily key after it as been used
than before it has been used?
one of the attacks on the stored-value gift cards has been to skim the
cards in the racks (before they've been activated) ... and check back
later to see which cards are gone.
i was standing at grocery store checkout last week ... apparently it was
the store manager ... one of the other employees came up with a gift
card that somebody had bought before xmas and gave as a present. they
had come back complaining that there was no money credited to the
account. it could have simply been an computer foul-up ... and then
again, it could have been somebody had skimmed the card, waited and then
drained the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
