Explicit Encapsulation Within the Ciphertext or Implicit Markup Database.
in [Cryptography]
|
From: rossum on 20 Apr 2010 12:38 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Maaartin <grajcar1(a)seznam.cz> wrote: >How does it come? Imagine a message consisting of lowercase english >letters only and the "database" consisting of only 26 distinct >characters. What you get from "Mutual Database Cryptography" is >monoalphabetic cipher, quite far from theoretically or practically >unbreakable. With longer "database" it gets better, but nowhere to >unbreakable. With a large enough database, something like Maurer's large public database for instance, you can make it as difficult to break as you wish. Synchronising private databases at that sort of size would indeed be a real PITA. rossum
From: Bruce Stephens on 20 Apr 2010 15:23 adacrypt <austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> writes: [...] > - it is making proper use of the computer science available to us at > last - shamefully, that has not been done up to now - regards - > adacrypt Do you really, honestly, think that nobody's thought of doing this before? Seriously? I mean, I guess it seems an invention to you, but you only started programming a couple of years ago---surely it's obvious that programmers would easily be able to use computers to do book codes, running key ciphers, etc.?
From: Phil Carmody on 21 Apr 2010 16:21 Bruce Stephens <bruce+usenet(a)cenderis.demon.co.uk> writes: > adacrypt <austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > [...] > >> - it is making proper use of the computer science available to us at >> last - shamefully, that has not been done up to now - regards - >> adacrypt > > Do you really, honestly, think There is no evidence of that. Killfile the loon. Phil -- I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Explicit Encapsulation Within the Ciphertext or Implicit Markup Database. Next: Public/Public |