[9238] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Compression side channel
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Mon Sep 10 03:01:24 2001
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20010909235500.02feb950@idiom.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 23:56:22 -0700
To: Greg Rose <ggr@qualcomm.com>
From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Cc: Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>, cryptography@wasabisystems.com
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010910105850.03096ef0@203.30.171.11>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 11:11 AM 09/10/2001 +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
>At 12:44 AM 9/9/2001 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>Does using non-adaptive compression save the day?
>
>Huffman coding using a fixed code table is not a bad way to go. You can
>even peek at the characteristics of the input and choose a table based on
>that... having standardised tables for English text, intel machine code,
>MS-word documents, C code, other languages, etc. Fax machines do something
>like this, with a huffman code table conditioned on a set of standard
>documents, but I'm not sure whether it is just a single table or a set of
>"choose one of these".
G3 is a single table - it's the standard used for most fax machines,
with 100x200 or 200x200 resolution.
Not sure about G4, which has higher resolution,
but I think that's the case for it also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
