Talk:Hyper-encryption

Hey guys,

I know this is incomplete, but Google only gave a couple good sources. If anybody cares, use Altavista or Lycos and see what you can get.

Cheers, brainybassist

Complete rewrite

I have now completely rewritten this article: it now needs expert review. -- Karada 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds Snake Oily To Me.

I am not familiar with the referenced paper, so I may be missing something, but the "plaintext" description of this "cryptosystem" sounds a lot like an OTP to me. Can anyone explain why this is NOT an OTP with another name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.214.112 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitively is not snake oil. Snake oil would mean that the authors make unfounded claims. This is not the case here. The papers use well defined assumptions and prove their results. The assumptions used in those papers are quite unconventional. E.g. the bounded-storage model assumes that there is a commonly accessible data stream that produces more bits than anyone can store. Such assumptions may make the resulting cryptosystem unpractical for most/all real-world applications, but that does not mean it snake oil. 81.62.29.213 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sketchy at best

The Article describes a (rather clever) way to have "one time pads". Now, if anybody acts upon some information gained from secret communication, they'd communicate ("make public") the information that they had this information. So the point is kind of moot. That is, up to bullshit.

--Bastiaan Zapf (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)