home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:3220 alt.security:4361
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews
- From: sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com (Bill Sommerfeld)
- Subject: Re: "Sneakers" -- action/adventure movie about Cryptography
- Sender: usenet@apollo.hp.com (Usenet News)
- Message-ID: <SOMMERFELD.92Sep10142214@gourmet.apollo.hp.com>
- In-Reply-To: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com's message of 10 Sep 92 03:41:59 GMT
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:21:21 GMT
- Lines: 15
- References: <1391@eouk18.eoe.co.uk> <6395@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
- <1992Sep4.205842.12303@qualcomm.com>
- <1992Sep10.034159.1617@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: gourmet.ch.apollo.hp.com
- Organization: Hewlett Packard
- Followup-To: alt.security
-
- In article <1992Sep10.034159.1617@qiclab.scn.rain.com> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
-
- I know of no *decent* lock that behaves this way.
-
- Well, it depends on how you define "decent"...
-
- Just about any mechanical key-based lock has a problem along these
- lines (due to the limits of manufacturing tolerances) which turns an
- O(x**y) problem into an O(x*y); it's just a matter of what equipment
- is necessary to exploit it.
-
- This is getting a bit far afield for sci.crypt; note the followup-to
- here.
-
- - Bill
-