Referencing 42 bits

S/Key isn't intended for "spoken phrases" but, rather, *textual* phrases. The "words" that S/Key employs aren't chosen to be unambiguous in spoken context -- especially over a (perhaps) noisey channel. Instead, they are expected to be "typed in". They are just words because words are easier to transport from a slip of paper through your brain and into your fingertips.

A user prepares a list of the next N "single use passphrases" and, typically, carries them on a sheet of paper in his/her wallet (they aren't very easy to commit to memory; and, the cost/benefit tradeoff is lousy -- why memorize something that you will use EXACTLY ONCE??). Once each password is used, it is considered "consumed" and used (on the server) to indirectly indicate the

*next* valid password (which is present on the user's list).

As such, the passwords can be damn near anything chosen from any "dictionary". RFC1760 indicates a *particular* dictionary that doesn't happen to be very well suited to memorization *or* disambiguation.

E.g., sample words: flo ira jot mao ... And, no rules regarding which words are acceptable in which "positions" (indeed, they are position independant; so "flo ira jot" and "ira jot flo" are each valid -- AND DIFFERENT!)

When choosing words for *spoken* transmission, you need to apply intelligibility tests (at the very least) to ensure you haven't allowed two "easily misheard" words to enter into the same context.

See, for example, To use the chart, imagine listening to someone speaking the words on any given line. Would you be able to correctly identify *which* word was spoken -- regardless of the characteristics of the channel, speaker's "accent", etc. (recall, there is no *context* associated with these words -- at least not in S/Key -- so nothing to help you decide whether "wig" or "rig" is being spoken!)

This is the value of the scheme I indicated elsewhere that causes the dictionary to VARY based on word position in the "phrase". E.g., if you treat "rig" as a verb then you know the proper interpretation for: "six blue _igs went walking..." must be "WIGS" because a noun is required in the position in doubt. (note you wouldn't allow WIGS and PIGS to coexist in that word position for similar reason)

Reply to
Don Y
Loading thread data ...

Numerics seen to be particularly hard for some people, easy for others. Back in the '60-'70s I worked for Philips, who used alphanumeric codes for part numbers. eg K 457 623 came from a K ( ceramic ) factory. That was at least a start. Then they dropped that and went to a 12 digit wordwide standard, but the numbers were grouped in such a way that the first 7 were a fairly easily remembered description for the items product group, country of origin and type of product. That left only the last 5 as arbitrary numbers for a specific product. Even today I can still remember a lot of them, and I never used them after about 1980.

--
Regards, 

Adrian Jansen           adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net 
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
Reply to
Adrian Jansen

I think a lot depends on usage -- and whether or not you even *think* you might be able to remember them! (i.e, if you don't think you COULD remember them, then you are probably less likely to even (subconsciously) *try*!

I have my credit card account numbers (15 digits) committed to memory, library card (14 digits), all sorts of phone numbers (I more often forget who the number is associated with than the number itself! "Hello?" "Hi, this is Don. Who are you?" "What do you mean, 'who am I?' I'm *Bob*!" "Ah, great! How're you doing, Bob? I just couldn't remember whose number this was..."), combinations to locks, (past) girlfriends' measurements, etc.

OTOH, I can never remember where I've left my damn *shoes*! :-/

Reply to
Don Y

Of all the numbers to remember, those are surely the most useless; they aren't even a stable reference over time! ;-)

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply to
Tim Williams

But, *at* the time, they seemed "highly interesting"! :> The point being, once a number gets *in* my head, it's usually pretty hard to FORCE it out (it just gathers dust in a corner)

Reply to
Don Y

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.