Infinite One-Time Pad, is this product BS?
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Certificates
Next: Q: Kerchhoffs' principle
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 08:33 >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 cryptography. > >> 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... only need to be digested according to todays technology and well understood by the reader. > -- - John Springfield
From: Richard Herring on 26 Jan 2010 08:28 In message <1aa4e571-9edb-4977-8200-67d4aba4e363(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, john <penetratorv(a)yahoo.com> writes >> >> Does the phrase "unicity distance" mean anything to you? > >- To be honest with you dude "unicity distance" is now meaningless >IMHO.. I'll take that as a "no". The value of YHO is becoming clearer with every sentence you utter. > though it has been the foundation of early cryptography - its >now the thing of the past - getting possibilities is almost infinite - ROFL. That's _why_ you need a long enough sequence of plaintext to verify your hypothesis. >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! Granny. Eggs. Suck. > 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). Word salad. > I think you're still living with paper and pen >dude Since you have no idea what I do, your opinion is worthless. Again. [...] >> >- But IOTP is different in many ways dude. >> >> Name five. >> >- Just look at the website dude, hiddentools.com If that's all it takes, why don't _you_ list them here? [...] >> >> 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 Yeah, right. Where? >but need to be digested and well understood by the reader. Starting to sound like Adacrypt. Are you related? Keep digging. -- Richard Herring
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 08:37 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... Bletchley Park is now a museum! We are already living in the rapidly 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 minded people.
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 09:10 On Jan 26, 1:28 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > In message > <1aa4e571-9edb-4977-8200-67d4aba4e...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > john <penetrat...(a)yahoo.com> writes > > > > >> Does the phrase "unicity distance" mean anything to you? > I'll take that as a "no". The value of YHO is becoming clearer with > every sentence you utter. > - ? ? ? ? ? > > though it has been the foundation of early cryptography - its > >now the thing of the past - getting possibilities is almost infinite - > > ROFL. That's _why_ you need a long enough sequence of plaintext to > verify your hypothesis. - Correct, do doubt with that dude but not the only way though - there are loads of far better ways if you only unlock your mind from Shannon's Principle and stay open-minded... QUALITY not QUANTITY dude! > >you can rumble your arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, geometry,... > Granny. Eggs. Suck. - A usual reply of a speechless loser. > > > I think you're still living with paper and pen > >dude > > Since you have no idea what I do, your opinion is worthless. Again. > - I've no business on what you do dude and am not interested at all - "living with paper and pen" means vintage way of dealing with things (as far as modern cryptography is concerned) and I've based my statement purely from our discussion - you lost your way again here dude. > > >> 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 > > Yeah, right. Where? - I can't get what you really want now dude, are you after the security skeleton? Don't ask me then as I know nothing of the construction just the result which matters to me - ask the developer instead, but I don't think they'll tell you that - it's a matter of being a trade secret I guess... but it's worth trying... > >but need to be digested and well understood by the reader. > > Starting to sound like Adacrypt. Are you related? > > Keep digging. - I wish I were.... yeah! keep digging... > -- - John Springfield
From: john on 26 Jan 2010 09:11
On Jan 26, 1:28 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote: > In message > <1aa4e571-9edb-4977-8200-67d4aba4e...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > john <penetrat...(a)yahoo.com> writes > >> Does the phrase "unicity distance" mean anything to you? > I'll take that as a "no". The value of YHO is becoming clearer with > every sentence you utter. - ? ? ? ? ? > > though it has been the foundation of early cryptography - its > >now the thing of the past - getting possibilities is almost infinite - > ROFL. That's _why_ you need a long enough sequence of plaintext to > verify your hypothesis. - Correct, no doubt with that dude but not the only way though - there are loads of far better ways if you only unlock your mind from Shannon's Principle and stay open-minded... QUALITY not QUANTITY dude! > >you can rumble your arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, geometry,... > Granny. Eggs. Suck. - A usual reply of a speechless loser. > > I think you're still living with paper and pen > >dude > Since you have no idea what I do, your opinion is worthless. Again. - I've no business on what you do dude and am not interested at all - "living with paper and pen" means vintage way of dealing with things (as far as modern cryptography is concerned) and I've based my statement purely from our discussion - you lost your way again here dude. > >> 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 > Yeah, right. Where? - I can't get what you really want now dude, are you after the security skeleton? Don't ask me then as I know nothing of the construction just the result which matters to me - ask the developer instead, but I don't think they'll tell you that - it's a matter of being a trade secret I guess... but it's worth trying... > >but need to be digested and well understood by the reader. > Starting to sound like Adacrypt. Are you related? > Keep digging. - I wish I were.... yeah! keep digging... > -- - John Springfield |