Mark-Up Cryptography or Encapsulation Cryptography.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: CFP Applied Computing 2010: submissions until 28 May 2010
Next: On the general benefits of introducing dynamics into encryption processing
From: adacrypt on 30 Apr 2010 13:59 On Apr 30, 6:07 pm, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 3:28 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > > > > > > > adacrypt wrote: > > > Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > > >> adacrypt wrote: > > > >>> Mark-up cryptography means the mutual database technology ...[snip] > > > >> I doubt that "mutual databse" is a commonly used/understood term in the > > >> field of database theory. Is that simply a huge codebook in the sense > > >> of classical crypto? > > > Hi, > > > > In this instance as applied to cryptography it means that Bob has an > > > exact copy of the arrays of data, the scrambling parameters, the slice > > > start points for arrays that Alice has used at her end to compile a > > > particular encrypted message. Collectively this is a database and > > > because it is common to both entities it is adjectively called a > > > mutual database. It is used over and over again in a different > > > permutation each time but is always mutually exact. - Cheers - > > > You didn't answer my question. > > > M. K. Shen- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No , it is not a huge codebook in any way - it is instead comprised of > several large (say about a nominal 8000 elements each) arrays of > mathematical integer operands that are called by a computer to enable > the one-way mathematical functions of this cryptography to proceed - > come again if you are still not clear. > Being merely a very large code book is unthinkable to me - that would > be far too facile and vulnerable for say national security - > unthinkable ! - this cryptography is totally number-theoretic and > symmetrically function-based rather than mere mapping of code points - > the algorithms are very mathematically prodigious - adacrypt.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Furthermore, Designing these ciphers is the most difficult thing you will ever take on - I have been fortunate in finding two areas in mathematics that yielded me a possibility - I am struggling to find another - it is a far cry from merely mapping code points (as your code form of ciphertext presumably suggests) to a huge codebook - I didnt even know such a thing exists and would never go down that highly transparent road - adacrypt
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 30 Apr 2010 16:27 adacrypt wrote: > No , it is not a huge codebook in any way - it is instead comprised of > several large (say about a nominal 8000 elements each) arrays of > mathematical integer operands that are called by a computer to enable > the one-way mathematical functions of this cryptography to proceed - > come again if you are still not clear. Unless you'll explain otherwise, what I could think of is that both partners keep two identical arrays of (as you wrote) 8000 elements and hence they could via the array indices do some identical operations on them. These operations are somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the partners. Though specifying a sequence of operations they could get identical results of computations and that is how they manage to communicate in principle, I surmise. (If so, the array is in essence a codebook, though the math operations -- you haven't detailed these operations, as far as I am aware -- that you apply are certainly absent in the classical usage of codebooks.) M. K. Shen
From: Gordon Burditt on 1 May 2010 00:21 >> > Mark-up cryptography means the mutual database technology ...[snip] >> >> I doubt that "mutual databse" is a commonly used/understood term in the >> field of database theory. Is that simply a huge codebook in the sense >> of classical crypto? >> >> M. K. Shen > >Hi, > > In this instance as applied to cryptography it means that Bob has an >exact copy of the arrays of data, the scrambling parameters, the slice >start points for arrays that Alice has used at her end to compile a >particular encrypted message. Collectively this is a database and >because it is common to both entities it is adjectively called a >mutual database. It is used over and over again in a different >permutation each time but is always mutually exact. - Cheers - >adacrypt The primary advantage of a "mutual database" is that it fools adacrypt into thinking that his Too Many Time Pad is a One Time Pad. Additional advantages of the "mutual database" are that, in the situation of messages going missing, being decrypted out of order, or attempting to decrypt a damaged or faked message, or decrypting the message with the wrong database (you need a pair of databases for each pair of people communicating - one for each direction) the databases become unsynchronized and eventually encrypted messages won't be decryptable by the recipient. To re-establish communications, the pair communicating has to use that magic secure channel (which adacrypt rarely mentions) to send another Too Many Time Pad, however, they may not be able to get an encrypted message through to inform the other end that this is necessary. A further advantage is that, in the absence of saving copies of the database before each message decryption, is that you can only decrypt a message once. After that, the part of the database used to decrypt that message has been modified and can't be used on the same message again, so if you want to *SAVE* the message, you have to save it in plaintext or use another cipher.
From: adacrypt on 1 May 2010 02:36 On Apr 30, 9:27 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > adacrypt wrote: > > No , it is not a huge codebook in any way - it is instead comprised of > > several large (say about a nominal 8000 elements each) arrays of > > mathematical integer operands that are called by a computer to enable > > the one-way mathematical functions of this cryptography to proceed - > > come again if you are still not clear. > > Unless you'll explain otherwise, what I could think of is that both > partners keep two identical arrays of (as you wrote) 8000 elements and > hence they could via the array indices do some identical operations on > them. These operations are somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the > partners. Though specifying a sequence of operations they could get > identical results of computations and that is how they manage to > communicate in principle, I surmise. (If so, the array is in essence > a codebook, though the math operations -- you haven't detailed these > operations, as far as I am aware -- that you apply are certainly absent > in the classical usage of codebooks.) > > M. K. Shen > These operations are somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the > partners. Hi again This is the deadly bit - i.e. the design basis for the encryption/ decryption algorithm. - For "somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the partners" in your reply please read " communicated by means of a one- way trapdoor mathematical function" (this is the markup generator in essence). Please read http://www.adacrypt.com "A New Approach to Cryptography" or http://scalarcryptography.co.uk "Scalable Key Cryptography" - these each contain a one-way mathematical function or more to the point in cryptography a" trapdoor one-way function" - * the trapdoor information is what is stored in the mutual databases and is indexed in sequential order at encryption time by Alice and decryption time by Bob. Finding the maths that provides a (truly) one-way trapdoor function is very challenging if you are thinking of writing your own markup cipher. You are substantially correct in your analysis otherwise. Remember :- Alice is the instigator of the loop - she alone calls the shots ! - Cheers - adacrypt. -Thanks for your input.
From: adacrypt on 1 May 2010 04:00
On May 1, 7:36 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 9:27 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > > > > > > > adacrypt wrote: > > > No , it is not a huge codebook in any way - it is instead comprised of > > > several large (say about a nominal 8000 elements each) arrays of > > > mathematical integer operands that are called by a computer to enable > > > the one-way mathematical functions of this cryptography to proceed - > > > come again if you are still not clear. > > > Unless you'll explain otherwise, what I could think of is that both > > partners keep two identical arrays of (as you wrote) 8000 elements and > > hence they could via the array indices do some identical operations on > > them. These operations are somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the > > partners. Though specifying a sequence of operations they could get > > identical results of computations and that is how they manage to > > communicate in principle, I surmise. (If so, the array is in essence > > a codebook, though the math operations -- you haven't detailed these > > operations, as far as I am aware -- that you apply are certainly absent > > in the classical usage of codebooks.) > > > M. K. Shen > > These operations are somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the > > partners. > > Hi again > This is the deadly bit - i.e. the design basis for the encryption/ > decryption algorithm. - For "somehow coded in a way agreed upon by the > partners" in your reply please read " communicated by means of a one- > way trapdoor mathematical function" (this is the markup generator in > essence). > Please readhttp://www.adacrypt.com "A New Approach to Cryptography" > orhttp://scalarcryptography.co.uk"Scalable Key Cryptography" - these > each contain a one-way mathematical function or more to the point in > cryptography a" trapdoor one-way function" - * the trapdoor > information is what is stored in the mutual databases and is indexed > in sequential order at encryption time by Alice and decryption time by > Bob. > > Finding the maths that provides a (truly) one-way trapdoor function is > very challenging if you are thinking of writing your own markup > cipher. > > You are substantially correct in your analysis otherwise. > > Remember :- Alice is the instigator of the loop - she alone calls the > shots ! - Cheers - adacrypt. > -Thanks for your input.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Also, reference your quote: > (If so, the array is in essence >a codebook, though the math operations -- you haven't detailed these >operations, as far as I am aware -- that you apply are certainly absent >in the classical usage of codebooks.) A code is usually defined at the level of words or phrases or occasionally at the level of a single character being substituted by another character => importantly , it is to do with *characters* in essence. You say > (If so, the array (of integers) is in essence > a codebook) - noramlly that might be allowed to pass but since you are at the same time also being very definitive about what is 'classical use of codebooks' then I must point out to you that an array of integers can not be a code book by the very defintion of what each one is. I have no idea what the classical use of code books is about but all my instintcts rail against it as being weak cryptography ? It is important to me, since my invention of markup ciphers is new groundbreaking cryptography that I do not inherit any wrong identity from older stuff such as codebooks - my databases are arrays of mathematical operands - the concept of using these sets of integers in conjunction with one-way trapdoor methods is totally new and should not be confused with the use of codebooks that are quite different and are character-based - adacrypt |