Unicity Distance - Practical Application

Practical Application

Unicity distance is a useful theoretical measure, but it doesn't say much about the security of a block cipher when attacked by an adversary with real-world (limited) resources. Consider a block cipher with a unicity distance of three ciphertext blocks. Although there is clearly enough information for a computationally unbounded adversary to find the right key (simple exhaustive search), this may be computationally infeasible in practise.

The unicity distance can be increased by reducing the plaintext redundancy. One way to do this is to deploy data compression techniques prior to encryption, for example by removing redundant vowels while retaining readability. This is a good idea anyway, as it reduces the amount of data to be encrypted.

Another way to increase the unicity distance is to increase the number of possible valid sequences in the files as it is read. Since if for at least the first several blocks any bit pattern can effectively be part of a valid message then the unicity distance has not been reached. This is possible on long files when certain bijective string sorting permutations are used, such as the many variants of bijective BWT transforms.

Ciphertexts greater than the unicity distance can be assumed to have only one meaningful decryption. Ciphertexts shorter than the unicity distance may have multiple plausible decryptions. Unicity distance is not a measure of how much ciphertext is required for cryptanalysis, but how much ciphertext is required for there to be only one reasonable solution for cryptanalysis.

Read more about this topic:  Unicity Distance

Famous quotes containing the words practical and/or application:

    War-making is one of the few activities that people are not supposed to view “realistically”; that is, with an eye to expense and practical outcome. In all-out war, expenditure is all-out, unprudent—war being defined as an emergency in which no sacrifice is excessive.
    Susan Sontag (b. 1933)

    Most people, no doubt, when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word “human.”
    Suzanne Lafollette (1893–1983)