I can't answer the question but it would be even more interesting to answer this if you're using a One-Time-Pad (i.e. two files of equal size on two different servers, both XORed give you the data). There exists a mathematical proof that none of the two files leak a single bit of information of the original data :) Chris On 02/18/2011 07:50 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] wrote: > Sorry, when I say eligible, I mean "which server would they be allowed > to take down by law?". > > I'm not too hot on the laws of encryption, but I'm sure there is > something which states that hosting encrypted files are not illegal, > it's distributing the key which allows you to gain access to those > fails, which is actually illegal. > > *DISCLAIMER: I don't know if the above is true or not, so apologies if > I got this wrong* > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, ck <c.kernstock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:c.kernstock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I go with the server hosting the files since the key should be > significant smaller than the files and therefor much easier to mirror. > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] > <cal.leeming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:cal.leeming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > So here's a thought. > > If illegally distributed files (such as this one) were encrypted > and hosted > > on one server, and the key hosted on another, which server would > > be eligible for take down? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/