Infinite One-Time Pad, is this product BS?
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Certificates
Next: Q: Kerchhoffs' principle
From: john on 25 Jan 2010 14:27 from UNRUH on Infinite One-Time Pad: > Secret Code - You can create a new secret code so that the software will > use this value every time you encrypt a text. The secret code is used to > transform the input text and the key. Every single character of the secret > code is used in the transformation. The number of transformations is equal > to the length of the secret code. ???? *** This means the code that comes after your first encryption i.e. using the file of your choice. Say, if your secret code is KEEPME123 then the encryption will transform when you key-in the letter K then transforms again with the letter E and so on but there's no turning back when you made a mistake of keying-in as the current transformation won't go back to the transformation 1 step back, it will when you reset keying-in the secret code but you must start the transformation by keying the letter K again. > Key Modification - You can insert words or characters to the key for > additional protection. This helps how? *** to totally strengthen the initial encryption made by your chosen FILE (could be the pic of your girl or any file in your system). i.e. when the first ecryption response made by the file reads as ru9ew783ure8u4*&^4^eooe..., you can make variation by making it this way ru9ew783urJOHNe8u4*&^4^eooe... (you can do more complex variation according to our liking), so even if they got the file you've used, they'll never know the variation you've made hence making the acquiring of the secret file useless. ***** These are at least in the user's point of view... I've honestly no idea if the program behind it is weak and hackers can dismatle it bit by bit as I'm not the developer but based from the encryption flowchart - it seems to me that it is indeed unbreakable. John
From: Peter Fairbrother on 25 Jan 2010 14:49 john wrote: [...] but based from the encryption > flowchart - it seems to me that it is indeed unbreakable. Then it's obvious to me that you know little or nothing about cryptography, and are unfit to offer an opinion. -- Peter Fairbrother
From: john on 25 Jan 2010 15:08 On Jan 25, 7:49 pm, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6...(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: > john wrote: > > [...] but based from the encryption > > > flowchart - it seems to me that it is indeed unbreakable. > > Then it's obvious to me that you know little or nothing about > cryptography, and are unfit to offer an opinion. > > -- Peter Fairbrother - It's also obvious to me that your understanding is quite short, carelessly giving a conclusion based only from a single sentence. Thanks for your opinion anyway, but at least my meticulous opinion is supported by facts and is not without basis like calling a software BS without even knowing how to use it which is far more unfit.
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 07:39 > You appear to be confusing different meanings of "crack". > Cracking software means patching it to circumvent whatever technology it > uses to enforce licence conditions. > Cracking an encryption system means finding a way to get plaintext from > ciphertext without knowledge of the key. > These are very different things. > - ... but they have the same "name" hence the confusion (by the reader). Of course they are different in meaning. Never did I say that software cracking is the same as cracking/decrypting a code. I did mention both of them but in different scenario - one is cracking the iotp software (license) and the other is the cracking of the encrypted code I've shown above. Whilst true that cracking the iotp software is by no means related to decrypting the code, I just consider them both at least in my own satisfaction... > > Does the phrase "unicity distance" mean anything to you? - To be honest with you dude "unicity distance" is now meaningless IMHO.. though it has been the foundation of early cryptography - its now the thing of the past - getting possibilities is almost infinite - you can rumble your arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, differential equations, statistics, matrices, etc. etc. these will only get you to nowhere... the length of the encrypted code I've shown above is NOT the same in length of the actual message or the secret key just to let you know and applying your mathematics to dig any connection is hopeless.... The world is now manipulated by high-powered computer with state of the art programming dude! The great cryptography oracle Alan Turing of Bletchley Park has long been dead. > >> Don't go WOW! though - this is full of holes, and while a single short > >> ciphertext may not be breakable, longer ones *will* be. > >> It isn't safe or secure. > >- How'd you know? With due respect, are you a programmer? Are you > >familiar at least the latest .net technology framework? me, I'm not. > Moreover, you apparently don't understand why that's irrelevant. > Cryptanalysis isn't programming, it's mathematics. > - Computational Mathematics to be exact sir. Although classical mathematics is the basic foundation, this has now been integrated to various computer techniques i.e. the power of computer programming (computer science). I think you're still living with paper and pen dude - that's a disaster to modern cryptoanalysis. > >> Also, I don't see anything which limits reuse of a keyfile and password > >> - breaking a pair of ciphertexts which use the same XOR key is trivial. > > >- But IOTP is different in many ways dude. > > Name five. > - Just look at the website dude, hiddentools.com but please don't think of the concept of the classic perfect randomness at this point in time so you can free yourself from the legacy of "unicity distance". > >> So yes, it's BS. > > >- No it's not, othewise prove it. > > It doesn't work like that. The onus is on you to provide a proof (in the > mathematical sense) of security. - The proof has been delivered but need to be digested and well understood by the reader. > -- - John Springfield
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 08:05
Richard, before I forget ---- "It seems that you are already captivated with Shannon's Principle. It's time to free yourself dude! Wake up, it's 2010! We are already living in the rapid advancing Computer Age. When you say that "The key is not random therefore it is not secure", as if you were saying "It is not a helicopter, therefore, it cannot fly..." Take it from me dude, "clinging to Shannon's Principle is very disastrous to the world of cryptography as it prevents advancements". The Infinite One-Time Pad is the most advanced cryptography software I've ever seen so far - only for advanced people though not for the vintage war-time cryptographers. |