Prev: How cool is this?
Next: The Winds of Change.
From: Tom St Denis on 5 May 2010 06:52
On May 4, 5:09 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
> Concepts are as a rule "relative", e.g. poor and rich. I know/consider
> my knowledge in crypto to be poor and I designate myself hence as
> layman.

Yeah, except the whole point of designing things as an amateur is TO
have them broken [either by yourself or others] and to learn from it.
You seemingly are very incapable of learning new facts beyond a
trivial level of complication. It's actually kinda annoying, sad and
medically interesting all at the same time.

Anyways. Get, grow, adopt, create, find, barter, buy, borrow, steal,
or somehow acquire a clue.

Tom
From: Greg Rose on 5 May 2010 13:11
In article <71d89644-094a-4039-b48c-c09c3da7af43(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com>,
Bryan <bryanjugglercryptographer(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
[...]

Bryan, you are continuing to fall for it. M-K
doesn't care about learning, or facts, or
cooperation. He likes to engage in endless
"humble" conversation. You are feeding his habit!

OTOH, he doesn't seem to like being talked *about*.

Greg.


--
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 5 May 2010 17:26
Bryan wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
[snip]

Mr. Olson, you wrote plenty of stuffs that concern me "personally". But
wouldn't you think that matters of scientific nature has priority over
personal matters in postings of this group? If you think the other
way round, then I'll ask you to say clearly and plainly the reasons.
If, on the other hand, you do agree that scientific matters should have
priority over (or at least have a priority not lower than) personal
matters, then I'll sincerely ask you to respond to the following of my
previous post:

BTW, I have said that the basic idea underlying the present scheme and
my proposal of the dynamic version of the Hill cipher is the same.
So, perhaps you could, utilizing your previous work done in
scrutinizing my proposal there, say something concrete/objective on
where the weakness of the scheme lies and in which direction one could
profitably pursue to crack it. (It's anyway my "attempt" here to
make it clear that "linear" isn't synonymous to "trivially weak".)

If you keep silent on this request, then I believe that most readers of
this group could perceive and understand why (namely that you are
short of objective and clear scientific arguments countering my points).

I am ready to discuss with you on my personal matters, if you consider
that to be necessary, but I believe I am anyway correct in insisting
that scientific matters should be dealt with "first".

M. K. Shen
From: Maaartin on 5 May 2010 18:35
On May 5, 11:26 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
> Mr. Olson, you wrote plenty of stuffs that concern me "personally". But
> wouldn't you think that matters of scientific nature has priority over
> personal matters in postings of this group?

The reason is simple: Even I could (most probable) create a cipher
which would be fast and take a long time to break. With long time I
mean something like one week of cryptographer's work (once) + couple
of hours of computer time (each time). Do you thing there's somebody
who would spend a week of his time in breaking my cipher? Nobody
would.

Why? Because there thousand of ciphers and the cryptographer would
prefer to spend time on those where he believes to gain more (more
experience, more fun, more money, more appreciation, or whatsoever).

What is such a cipher taking one week of cryptographer 's worth?
Exactly zero, as there are enough others, which are proven (partly
mathematically, partly by their history) to be better.

What would I need to make my cipher interesting? Look what Bruce
Schneier writes about it.

> If you keep silent on this request, then I believe that most readers of
> this group could perceive and understand why (namely that you are
> short of objective and clear scientific arguments countering my points).

Maybe he is, maybe he is not. Maybe he just doesn't spend his time on
it. Does it matter? He said: "Modern ciphers are designed to resist
adaptive chosen plaintext attacks, and beyond.". That's surely true.
Is your schema vulnerable to non-adaptive chosen plaintext attacks? It
is. Isn't it enough?
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 5 May 2010 19:20
Maaartin wrote:
> On May 5, 11:26 pm, Mok-Kong Shen<mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>> Mr. Olson, you wrote plenty of stuffs that concern me "personally". But
>> wouldn't you think that matters of scientific nature has priority over
>> personal matters in postings of this group?
>
> The reason is simple: Even I could (most probable) create a cipher
> which would be fast and take a long time to break. With long time I
> mean something like one week of cryptographer's work (once) + couple
> of hours of computer time (each time). Do you thing there's somebody
> who would spend a week of his time in breaking my cipher? Nobody
> would.

The main point my mine is how could one deal with the "one equation but
two unknowns" issue. Mr. Maaatin, if you could answer that in place of
Mr. Olson, I am grateful to you just as well.

M. K. Shen
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: How cool is this?
Next: The Winds of Change.