Prev: On n-gram substitutions [revised]
Next: Test vectors for Diffie Hellman
From: adacrypt on 18 Mar 2010 11:40

If any two points on a line, ideally two integer points are known,
then the identity of the line i.e. the equation of the line is
determinable for that line and all the other infinitely many points
both integer and float that comprise the line can be found. It is
extremely difficult i.e. computationally infeasible but not
impossible, to find the equation of the line if some trace evidence is
discovered that can be conjectured and proved by computer-testing the
solution space of all possible candidate numbers, to see if they
satisfy the conjectured equation. If the numbers in question are
cipher text then it means the cipher that produced them is blown. The
‘equation of a line means the rule that must be satisfied for any
point (number) to be on the line.

If a cryptographer knowingly goes down that road despite knowing the
dangers but tries to secure himself by adding some contrived extra
stumbling blocks then he is going into profoundly complexity-theoretic
cryptography. He is counting on an insufficiency of current computer
power to save his cryptography from being blown open.

All of the well-known ciphers are doing this at present, AES, RSA,
PGP, Discreet
Logarithm, the lot.

In the ciphers that I am promoting from my websites, Alice and Bob use
one integer number only that is taken from the once-only use of an
infinite set of individual number lines. Clearly, it is not possible
to deduce the equation of any of the lines by backtracking to the
equation since it requires two known points on a line to do that.
Paradoxically, although Alice and Bob know the equation of every line
that they use they do not use that powerful knowledge for decryption
purposes. Instead they use synchronised mutual database technology to
map data directly in explicit fashion. In passing, the string of
cipher text that Alice creates is a string of totally independent
integers, each integer belongs on a totally different number line so
that all thoughts of mathematical cryptanalysis is a futile non-
starter to any adversary.

How it Works.
Alice creates an encryption program. She next creates a decryption
program that checks the veracity of her earlier encryption work. She
next sends an exact copy of this joint combined pair of encryption and
decryption programs to Bob as a single program that enables him to
decrypt anything that she later encrypts and sends to him when using
the same parameters at each end.

Alice’s cipher text functions as a virtual mark-up language that can
be applied to the virtual server that Bob’s copied database becomes in
their mutual-database crypto-scheme. The databases are comprised of
about three large (containing as many as 14250 elements) arrays of
scrambled data, both sets of arrays at each end are scrambled in
identical order. Alice’s cipher text is designed to index these
arrays in the correct order that will assign the right structure to
the elements of the arrays when the cipher text is read in sequential
order at Bob’s end. The result is a coherent message exactly as Alice
wants it to open on Bob’s computer (his virtual ‘browser’ by analogy)..

The encrypted plaintext as a transformed string of cipher text is sent
to Bob as an attachment to an unsecured email in an unsecured
channel. Intercepting the cipher text en route only means a batch of
useless data to any adversary. The intercepted cipher text is useless
to anybody who does not know the exact, instantaneous state of the
scheme’s mutual databases, the state of these latter is constantly
changing as Alice decides to do so.

Both the “vector cryptography” and the “scalar cryptography” currently
being promoted here in sci crypt use infinite domains of number-line
choice. Vector cryptography is more infinite (joke) than scalar
cryptography in that it uses the whole of three-dimensional space to
give direction to the directed number lines that it uses, whereas
scalar cryptography uses the infinity of directions in a single plane
as a subset of that larger total space. There is no definition for
infinity that I know of but I have heard it said that infinity is
truly infinite when a subset of an infinite set is also infinite in
itself. - QED

Both of these crypto schemes are being classed as “theoretically
unbreakable” and superior to the current cryptography in national use
that is only practically unbreakable. The terminology “Theoretically
Unbreakable” is not something that I coined myself – it is used often
in that impeccable information source “A Handbook of Applied
Cryptography” (p.14 and again on p.21).

Apart from being a parlous state of less-than-ideal national security
the present security schemes in the crypto industry require a large
amount of user-assistance by highly trained crypto-orientated
graduates when that work should really be done by non-specialist
keyboard operators who simply only need to know how to respond to
timely on-screen prompts from a computer. My ciphers are designed to
do this.

The global expense of this anomaly needs to be addressed also. Being
a captive industry it has to be a case of “anything you can do I
cannot do better” because of the constraints imposed by uncle Sam who
pactically owns it - adacrypt



From: bert on 18 Mar 2010 11:45
On 18 Mar, 15:40, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the well-known ciphers are doing this at present,
> AES, RSA, PGP, Discreet Logarithm, the lot.
>
And we see that he can't spell, either...
--

From: Tom St Denis on 18 Mar 2010 12:26
On Mar 18, 11:45 am, bert <bert.hutchi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 15:40, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All of the well-known ciphers are doing this at present,
> > AES, RSA, PGP, Discreet Logarithm, the lot.
>
> And we see that he can't spell, either...
> --

I'd be more concerned with him lumping AES, RSA and ... **PGP** into
the same sentence of algorithms that are "relying on an insufficiency
of computing power." I mean it's bad enough that AES and RSA are
different class of algorithms altogether, but PGP isn't even a crypto
primitive it's a protocol.

Of course that's to be expected from someone who has a fairly
hollywood grasp of cryptography.
From: Noob on 18 Mar 2010 12:29
bert wrote:

> adacrypt wrote:
>>
>> All of the well-known ciphers are doing this at present,
>> AES, RSA, PGP, Discreet Logarithm, the lot.
>
> And we see that he can't spell, either...

Dude,

The "Discreet Logarithm" is a top secret cipher, used only
in very confidential circles by the crypto elite.

Regards.
From: Earl_Colby_Pottinger on 18 Mar 2010 13:05
It may be nit-picking but a true OTP does not depend lack of decoding
computer power to make it impossible to crack. If I was passing a
simple (less than ten characters, upper case only) password to someone
who shares an OTP with me it would be simple to decode every single
possible OTP combination and you still could not tell which is the
proper encoding.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: On n-gram substitutions [revised]
Next: Test vectors for Diffie Hellman