Why is a one-time pad very good but at the same time very impractical/expensive?

Can someone please explain why is a one-time pad very good but at the same
time very impractical/expensive?

Thanks,

Re: Why is a one-time pad very good but at the same time very impractical/expensive?

M0nst3r wrote:
> Can someone please explain why is a one-time pad very good but at the same
> time very impractical/expensive?

It's very good, because it's the only cryptography algorith, which is
proofable secure.

It's expensive, because it needs as much known random data, the same at
sender's as at receiver's side, as plaintext is to send.

It's not perfect, because it does not help against known plaintext
attacks which implement the MITM pattern, if there are no extra
provisions.

Yours,
VB.
--
Ich würde schätzen, dass ca. 87% aller spontanen Schätzungen völlig für
den Arsch sind.

Ralph Angenendt in debate@ccc.de

Re: Why is a one-time pad very good but at the same time very impractical/expensive?

The article in Wikipedia says almost everything: the generation,
distribution, disposal of the keys is a bit difficult and is not
well-suited for the average user. But the OTP can be used *easily* by
some people with a base knowledge of IT security and cryptography, or
users inclined to strictly follow a few rules. It is my bet that the
OTP will gain popularity in the close future.

Two great features of the OTP are that 1/ owning a supercomputer will
not help a lot an attacker decrypt your data and 2/ it allows deniable
encryption.

Kind regards
Ludovic

Re: Why is a one-time pad very good but at the same time very impractical/expensive?

M0nst3r wrote:
> Can someone please explain why is a one-time pad very good but at the same
> time very impractical/expensive?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
Does anybody else smell homework?


Chris Mattern