Thread: one time pad breakable debate

Originally Posted by rogster001

for my own part i am merely saying that historically cryptographers have not used simple random typing as a secure form of randomness,whether through empirical evidence or theoretical study it has been found that it is not a usable method, the fact that its use has been shunned in real world applications by people that genuinely need to guarantee security as far as they can, is evidence enough for me.

It's a good argument. But then,

It probably hasn't been used because it really isn't practical to type hundreds of random characters in a keyboard and it does tend to look silly and rather unprofessional for a cryptanalyst to do it

But more seriously (despite the above paragraph being more serious than what I'm making it look), it says nothing of the randomness approach to a One-Time pad. Why? Because your only hope to find the plaintext is to force the cypher against bruteforce and hope for the best, not to study the properties of the pad.

Originally Posted by pianorain

Or just quote a source. This paper was extremely interesting. Even after de-skewing, the typing test failed.

It probably did. As this sequence I just generated from an Mersenne Twister may fail: 195433953634