Is there a Mathematician Cryptographr in the House.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: fire seal with video
Next: Last Call for Papers Reminder (extended): World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science WCECS 2010
From: Thomas on 21 Jul 2010 00:47 I've read it too carefully. I have three comments : - please typeset in LaTeX or similar, it is so much easier to read that to use Arial or whatever nonserif font you used. - never, ever, ever, use underscores in such a document (particularly by putting it right on the title where it can't possibly be less obvious) - that's wrong. As David Eather said before, I'm not being nasty to you, nor am I putting you down, but what you wrote throughout these four pages or so, is just plain wrong. I could quote dozens of lines that make no sense. Here's one : >> "A store of keys 14000 strong has been randomly created and these are called sequentially by the main program for pairing with each corresponding current plaintext." Isn't there a grammatical typo with the "strong" ? But nevermind that, how are the keys generated ? Show us your so-called randomness ... I'll bet you are using the (probable) LCG included within ADA ... at least if it is not an option to make your users pay for a high-tech radioactivity decay entropy pool ... at least retreive random bits from some secure PRNG or from the internet using
From: Thomas on 21 Jul 2010 00:53 Damn keyboard ! .... from the internet using well-known secure online entropy pools ... nevermind that it's slow, you don't need much data (well usually cryptography doesn't require that much randomness, now that's your problem if your cipher stands out by requiring thousands of random bytes) Anyway, I think I made my point. Efficient communication is not just "saying things" like you seem to enjoy doing on this usegroup. It's saying relevant things that have a general and universally understood meaning, a general and universally understood purpose, in a general and universally understood format. None of what you did meets these criteria, therefore communication cannot take place, or is hardly achieved, you fail to make your point and so on again and again. For some reason Mok-Kong-Shen seems to understand a lot better than everybody else, maybe in fact we are all just dumb and need to die ? Come on ...
From: Paulo Marques on 21 Jul 2010 07:39 Thomas wrote: > I've read it too carefully. I have three comments : > - please typeset in LaTeX or similar, it is so much easier to read > that to use Arial or whatever nonserif font you used. > - never, ever, ever, use underscores in such a document (particularly > by putting it right on the title where it can't possibly be less > obvious) > - that's wrong. As David Eather said before, I'm not being nasty to > you, nor am I putting you down, but what you wrote throughout these > four pages or so, is just plain wrong. I could quote dozens of lines > that make no sense. Here's one : > >>> "A store of keys 14000 strong has been randomly created and these are called sequentially by the main program for pairing with each corresponding current plaintext." > > Isn't there a grammatical typo with the "strong" ? But nevermind that, > how are the keys generated ? Show us your so-called randomness ... > I'll bet you are using the (probable) LCG included within ADA ... You wish! He's actually using something even worse: he is using its own "scramble" function that is seeded by just a couple of "small" integers. I tried to read his "documentation" also and the non standard use of common cryptography words like "random" and "key" was making it totally incomprehensible... -- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com "There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full."
From: MrD on 21 Jul 2010 13:28 Thomas wrote: > > Isn't there a grammatical typo with the "strong" ? No. It is idiomatically odd, in that "$NUMBER strong" is normally used to refer to a group of people; the semantic roots are military - e.g. "A army of warriors 20,000 strong". -- MrD.
From: David Eather on 21 Jul 2010 18:31
On 21/07/2010 11:06 AM, David Eather wrote: > On 18/07/2010 7:41 PM, adacrypt wrote: >> >> Both �Key� and �Plaintext� belong in the ASCII printable subset >> (elements 32 to 126 incl � 95 elements) >> >> Treat these names �Key� and �Plaintext� as variable names in this >> model. >> >> X is a positive integer. >> >> Consider now, >> >> [(X +Key) + (X +Plaintext)] (Mod N) = a residue (Mod N) >> >> Call, [(X +Key) + (X +Plaintext)], Sum. >> >> N must divide Sum just once (and once only) and leave the residue (Mod >> N)>= 0 >> >> Every possible combination of key and Plaintext is to be considered as >> usable for both key and plaintext at any instant. >> >> Then, question >> >> 1) >> >> What is the minimum starting value for X that enables any N to be >> deduced � i.e. what is the value of this first N that satisfies the >> equation, >> >> [(X +Key) + (X +Plaintext)] (Mod N) = a residue (Mod N)>= 0 >> >> What is the value of X that will give me a discreet number of N�s say >> 14000. >> >> Theory. >> >> This is the algorithm that produces two sets of random keys in the >> following cipher in modular arithmetic. >> >> Encryption. >> >> [(X +Key) + (X +Plaintext)] (Mod N) = a residue (Mod N)>=0 >> >> Cipher text = residue � N >> Decryption. >> >> Decryption Key = residue + N >> >> Plaintext (as messagetext) = Ciphertext + 2N � Key >> >> Comment. >> >> This cipher comes from the same stable as your RSA cipher except that >> this cipher is totally, utterly and irrefutably unbreakable by any >> means. It is secured by two sets of random keys i.e. the set of >> eponymous keys (Key) and the set of N�s. Each of these two sets of >> random keys is made equal in length to the message length during >> encryption. Each of these two sets of random keys is used only once >> in any message. >> >> The cipher uses the concept of mutual database technology, i.e. the >> keys are read in sequential order from the synchronised arrays in the >> entities� databases. The plaintext is either read in from external >> batch files (produced by non-specialist operators) or is keyed >> interactively at the computer keyboard (by non-specialist operators). >> The arrays are periodically �scrambled� and �sliced� in a controlled >> way by the entities. >> >> If there are readers who are academics and would like to justify this >> brainwave into formal presentation then I would welcome your interest >> and contribution. >> >> As I see it. >> >> Residue, Ciphertext and Decryption key are congruent modulo N. >> (editing restriction forces me to print it this way) >> >> There are N elements in each residue class, there N classes of >> residue. >> >> It would be nice to formalise this using proper mathematical notation >> but again the restrictions of this editor won�t go that far. How >> would you do it just for comparison. >> >> Comment. >> >> This not a boring one-time pad cipher. >> >> This is a cipher for mathematicians. >> >> It is an adaptation of the Vigenere cipher that undocks the eponymous >> square from its static position at (0,0) and moves it along the line Y >> = - (X+x). >> >> The OTP is also another adaptation of the Vigenere cipher although >> sadly, no one seems to realise this. Major Joseph Mauborgne who was >> Head of the US Army Cryptological Research in 1920 did however and >> designed the OTP in conjunction with his contemporary Gilbert Vernam. >> >> In my opinion, one of the first things that should have been done with >> the inception of computer-driven cryptography is to have had another >> look at the OTP that had become a popular joke paradox in the previous >> half century. That is being done now albeit more a renaissance of the >> Vigenere cipher than the OTP. >> >> May I repeat, this is not a One-Time Pad cipher despite the >> resemblance in the caveats of the operation. Please don�t make any >> comparison-based arguments. >> >> Please give this modular arithmetic your best shot, it is a cipher for >> the future. >> >> The theory is fully expounded on my website >> http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk >> - adacrypt > > > Ok. I have carefully read - > > http://www.adacrypt.com/downloads/A%20Computerised%20One-Time%20Pad.pdf > > I understand what you have written. > > From what you have written it is clear that you have no useful > understanding of even basic cryptography. Not a single concept has been > understood, described or implemented correctly. I am not being mean, > nasty or exaggerating. Simply, it is not correct. I have to add to my original comment in case it is misunderstood. What you have implemented is not new or unique, it is old cryptography, except that your implementation adds nothing but further weaknesses and defects. Sorry. |