Prev: News: First synthetic cell created
Next: How to determine passphrase entropy?
From: adacrypt on 23 May 2010 03:45
Given that perfect secrecy of communications or as the “Handbook of
Applied Cryptography” puts it, theoretically unbreakable strength of
security, is a definitive state, there are can be no degrees of
comparison between competing ciphers. Secure means secure – nothing
more – nothing less.

In passing, the paucity of such ciphers at present signals that the
likelihood of that happy state i.e. unbreakable ciphers competing with
each other for supremacy is not likely to be realised for some time
although it is very possible in the vector cryptography that I have
invented.

The question begs, “does the industry need anything more than one good
cipher?”. I say no but rather than close the door on any area of
human endeavour I say that if it ever comes to that happy state of
having a choice of ciphers (written by any reader) then the yardstick
has to be total security as a foregone conclusion firstly, followed by
efficiency next and then elegance. Elegance is a flag of excellent
intelligence in our human nature and is always some thing to be
considered after the more essential basic boxes have been ticked, long
may it live!

As an arena for creative writing the unbreakable cipher is an arid
desert at the present time but it is to be seen in vector cryptography
especially, that once the shackles of habit have been overcome and the
inertia of change has been shaken off then there is an exciting new
field of possibilities for the more broad-minded reader.

Totally viable, unbreakable security of information is a worldwide
birthright – there is no room for small-minded parochial thinking
about which nationality first invents it - it is there now -
adacrypt




From: Dave -Turner on 23 May 2010 13:49
Dear Adacrypt,

Why are you the only person talking about "vector cryptography"?

Why are there only 1070 google matches for that phrase?

Why are no reputed cryptography experts talking about it, or even bothering
to refute what you say?

Why do you go on and on about mindnumbing theory that makes no sense (as if
to just make us believe that what you're saying is gospel) when you provide
....

.... wait for it ...

No mathematical proofs?


From: starwars on 23 May 2010 16:12
Killfile him like everyone else

From: Gordon Burditt on 24 May 2010 12:23
>Given that perfect secrecy of communications or as the �Handbook of
>Applied Cryptography� puts it, theoretically unbreakable strength of
>security, is a definitive state, there are can be no degrees of
>comparison between competing ciphers.

"Adacrypt Administrative Nightmare" is absolute.

>Secure means secure � nothing
>more � nothing less.

A cipher that requires the exchange of large amounts of keying
material through a secure channel between strangers will never be
acceptable for e-commerce (or even postal mail commerce) between a
business and its customers.

A cipher that gets out of sync if messages arrive out of order,
messages are garbled, messages are replayed, or an adversary fools
you into attempting to decrypt a fake message is unsuitable for use
in the real world. (Example: how common is SPAM that claims to
be from your bank?) It gets taken down by a denial-of-service
attack too easily.

> In passing, the paucity of such ciphers at present signals that the
>likelihood of that happy state i.e. unbreakable ciphers competing with
>each other for supremacy is not likely to be realised for some time
>although it is very possible in the vector cryptography that I have
>invented.
>
>The question begs, �does the industry need anything more than one good
>cipher?�.

Yes. Public-key cryptography has some highly desirable properties
for some applications, and those properties are useless for other
applications.

If your customer *is* the adversary (DRM applications like cable
boxes), you need to resort to tamper-proof hardware so the customer
can't get the key out of it.

Some endpoints are not able to store large amounts of keying material,
compared to the message traffic, so theoretically unbreakable ciphers
are out. Some of them cannot easily get new keying material. (Space
probes, spy satellites, smart cards, and cable boxes that have to
be able to decrypt any of 100 channels of video, 24x7 come to mind
here.)

>I say no but rather than close the door on any area of
>human endeavour I say that if it ever comes to that happy state of
>having a choice of ciphers (written by any reader) then the yardstick
>has to be total security as a foregone conclusion firstly, followed by
>efficiency next and then elegance.

Incorrect. For many applications, total security is thrown out
right away as impractical because of the intended use, or because
of the cost. Crypto applications don't come in one-size-fits-all.
Sometimes you're trying to protect military secrets. Sometimes
you're trying to protect against copying a movie that rents for $2.
Sometimes the security of ROT 13 *is* overkill.

From: Dave -Turner on 26 May 2010 22:48
> Sometimes the security of ROT 13 *is* overkill.

I prefer XOR 0x69 on every byte. Gives me warm fuzzies.



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: News: First synthetic cell created
Next: How to determine passphrase entropy?