|
|
|
|
|
|
by AnthonyMouse
4724 days ago
|
|
|
>In the end, it's no better than regular encryption, at the cost of being at least twice more inefficient. He goes on to explain how to make it more efficient: If you need every "wheat" packet to reconstruct any part of the message, you can send a finite number of chaff packets (e.g. 1000) in random locations, which would make reconstructing a message of arbitrary length infeasible for an adversary that can't separate the wheat from the chaff other than by exhaustive search. |
|
|