Prev: verify symmetric cipher key?
Next: My Cryptography that is Currently on the Joke-of-the-Day site
From: adacrypt on 4 Jul 2010 08:47


There will always be a need for the cheapest cryptography available
that will serve the needs of commerce at some right price and give the
required degree of security for the required cover time. Anything more
than the required degree of security and the required cover time in
commerce is redundant cover and can be a very expensive waste. In the
case of national security however cover time is never-ending and the
degree of security should be nothing less than theoretically
unbreakable – i.e. perfect secrecy of communication of information at
least.

At present, national governments are in the parlous state of never
knowing if hitherto ‘practically’ unbreakable ciphers have indeed
being broken in the meantime by enemy powers who are now quietly
reading their intercepted secret messages. The only antidote to that
event is for national governments to use theoretically unbreakable
security as the minimum degree of security at all times. Only that
will always ensure that their secret communications to other countries
are completely safe. That kind of security is not available to any
country however at the present time.

The aim here therefore, is to create theoretically unbreakable
cryptography at any cost for national security and hope that this cost
will be acceptably low at the same time for commerce to be able to
afford it also in all day-to-day running, otherwise commerce is just
as well off staying with existing cryptography that is being called
‘practically’ unbreakable. Although only ‘practically’ unbreakable in
name that cryptography is virtually unbreakable in practice. The only
disturbing thing about ‘practically unbreakable’ cryptography is the
fact that nobody knows what trumps the enemy is holding in the way of
secret advances they may have made in cracking ciphers such as the RSA
cipher and AES that hitherto governments regarded as unbreakably safe.
Only theoretically unbreakable ciphers can be considered totally safe
in this respect.

There is no selfish pursuit of greedy material gain by me in this
respect in the cryptography that I am promoting as either vector
cryptography http://www.adacrypt.com or modular cryptography
http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk that both operate by mapping
plaintext to widely dispersed points in space thus putting
cryptanalysis beyond the pale of all mathematics in terms of inversion
methods. These cipher designs both use mutual database technology to
implement the mathematical one-way functions and randomness that are
the securing basis of these crypto types. Mathematical inversion of
ciphertext is totally disabled by this design of cryptography.

The ciphers to hand are intended to be nothing more than feasibility
models that say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” i.e. they
demonstrate the realisation of the mathematical claim into de facto
ciphers. I have no pretensions to software engineering or
infrastructure management but my claim is that only when the
mathematical core is demonstrated as being theoretically unbreakable,
is all else then made possible and not before this.

It is fully understood by me that clever software engineering by these
experts will greatly enhance all aspects of the working efficacy of
the software per se that is to hand as up and running programs, as
well as optimising the portability of the software as it stands and
also, an input of experienced infrastructure management will work
wonders on both the considerable tertiary system security and the
electronic transmission efficacy of the overall crypto schemes.

Even as it stands, either of these crypto scheme types is quite viable
as a home-grown DIY crypto scheme that any non-specialist management
group like say a corporate commercial company wanting to set up and
manage their own crypto network could do on thier own, with minimal
knowledge of cryptography. It is well within the capability of an
average office administrator to do this.

I am confident that the running costs of this simple transparent
scheme that provides maximum security i.e. theoretically unbreakable
class of security, is eventually going to be so cheap as to become the
first choice for both commercial and national secure communications in
time. No on-site specialists are needed for the day-to-day running of
a scheme apart from say an initial systems-analyst/cryptographer input
at the outset just to get it all working. I envisage such a scheme as
having about the same daily management complexity needs as say a
typical on-line banking scheme.

There is no argument for continuing current crypto schemes that
require a lot of user-assistance and are only practically unbreakable
at the end of the day unless they are very much cheaper than what’s on
offer here - I doubt this very much - adacrypt
From: WTShaw on 4 Jul 2010 09:10
On Jul 4, 7:47 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> There will always be a need for the cheapest cryptography available
> that will serve the needs of commerce at some right price and give the
> required degree of security for the required cover time. Anything more
> than the required degree of security and the required cover time in
> commerce is redundant cover and can be a very expensive waste. In the
> case of national security however cover time is never-ending and the
> degree of security should be nothing less than theoretically
> unbreakable – i.e. perfect secrecy of communication of information at
> least.
>
.....
>
> The aim here therefore, is to create theoretically unbreakable
> cryptography at any cost for national security and hope that this cost
> will be acceptably low at the same time for commerce to be able to
> afford it also in all day-to-day running, otherwise commerce is just
> as well off staying with existing cryptography that is being called
> ‘practically’ unbreakable. Although only ‘practically’ unbreakable in
> name that cryptography is virtually unbreakable in practice. The only
> disturbing thing about ‘practically unbreakable’ cryptography is the
> fact that nobody knows what trumps the enemy is holding in the way of
> secret advances they may have made in cracking ciphers such as the RSA
> cipher and AES that hitherto governments regarded as unbreakably safe.
> Only theoretically unbreakable ciphers can be considered totally safe
> in this respect.
>
....

> The ciphers to hand are intended to be nothing more than feasibility
> models that say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” i.e. they
> demonstrate the realisation of the mathematical claim into de facto
> ciphers.  I have no pretensions to software engineering or
> infrastructure management but my claim is that only when the
> mathematical core is demonstrated as being theoretically unbreakable,
> is all else then made possible and not before this.
>

As always, I am generally supportive of efforts to increase the pot of
viable encryption. For each crypto-system the same questions remain:

1) Is it a merely a teaching tool, and if not to what level does it
aspire to be directed?

2 What do you feel are the limitations and major strengths of the
system?

3) Can and has it be easily be demonstrated to actually work in some
format that is easy for anyone to test even if such is not the most
ideal configuration?

4) Is it throughly tested to be functional by several people who may
have no prior technical knowledge of cryptography but can at least
follow simple instructions?

5) What are the principles of the algorithm in more or less common
terms easily understood and have been fairly well explained in return
by such a listener...in short, did he get it?

6) What are any and all objections to it whether they make sense or
not and what is your learned response to those objections?



From: adacrypt on 4 Jul 2010 09:35
On Jul 4, 2:10 pm, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:47 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There will always be a need for the cheapest cryptography available
> > that will serve the needs of commerce at some right price and give the
> > required degree of security for the required cover time. Anything more
> > than the required degree of security and the required cover time in
> > commerce is redundant cover and can be a very expensive waste. In the
> > case of national security however cover time is never-ending and the
> > degree of security should be nothing less than theoretically
> > unbreakable – i.e. perfect secrecy of communication of information at
> > least.
>
> ....
>
> > The aim here therefore, is to create theoretically unbreakable
> > cryptography at any cost for national security and hope that this cost
> > will be acceptably low at the same time for commerce to be able to
> > afford it also in all day-to-day running, otherwise commerce is just
> > as well off staying with existing cryptography that is being called
> > ‘practically’ unbreakable. Although only ‘practically’ unbreakable in
> > name that cryptography is virtually unbreakable in practice. The only
> > disturbing thing about ‘practically unbreakable’ cryptography is the
> > fact that nobody knows what trumps the enemy is holding in the way of
> > secret advances they may have made in cracking ciphers such as the RSA
> > cipher and AES that hitherto governments regarded as unbreakably safe.
> > Only theoretically unbreakable ciphers can be considered totally safe
> > in this respect.
>
> ...
>
> > The ciphers to hand are intended to be nothing more than feasibility
> > models that say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” i.e. they
> > demonstrate the realisation of the mathematical claim into de facto
> > ciphers.  I have no pretensions to software engineering or
> > infrastructure management but my claim is that only when the
> > mathematical core is demonstrated as being theoretically unbreakable,
> > is all else then made possible and not before this.
>
> As always, I am generally supportive of efforts to increase the pot of
> viable encryption.  For each crypto-system the same questions remain:
>
> 1) Is it a merely a teaching tool, and if not to what level does it
> aspire to be directed?
>
> 2 What do you feel are the limitations and major strengths of the
> system?
>
> 3) Can and has it be easily be demonstrated to actually work in some
> format that is easy for anyone to test even if such is not the most
> ideal configuration?
>
> 4) Is it throughly tested to be functional by several people who may
> have no prior technical knowledge of cryptography but can at least
> follow simple instructions?
>
> 5) What are the principles of the algorithm in more or less common
> terms easily understood and have been fairly well explained in return
> by such a listener...in short, did he get it?
>
> 6) What are any and all objections to it whether they make sense or
> not and what is your learned response to those objections?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi W.T,

Be my guest,

Re vector cryptography - download the program sourcedcode with
included compiler and test it yourself (link provided).

Re - scalable key cryptography - the down load is being prepared and
should uploaded about wednesday this coming week - the theory is fully
expounded there already.

Maybe this is just some of your usual rhetoric ?

either way good to hear - adacrypt
From: adacrypt on 4 Jul 2010 09:46
On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2:10 pm, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 7:47 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There will always be a need for the cheapest cryptography available
> > > that will serve the needs of commerce at some right price and give the
> > > required degree of security for the required cover time. Anything more
> > > than the required degree of security and the required cover time in
> > > commerce is redundant cover and can be a very expensive waste. In the
> > > case of national security however cover time is never-ending and the
> > > degree of security should be nothing less than theoretically
> > > unbreakable – i.e. perfect secrecy of communication of information at
> > > least.
>
> > ....
>
> > > The aim here therefore, is to create theoretically unbreakable
> > > cryptography at any cost for national security and hope that this cost
> > > will be acceptably low at the same time for commerce to be able to
> > > afford it also in all day-to-day running, otherwise commerce is just
> > > as well off staying with existing cryptography that is being called
> > > ‘practically’ unbreakable. Although only ‘practically’ unbreakable in
> > > name that cryptography is virtually unbreakable in practice. The only
> > > disturbing thing about ‘practically unbreakable’ cryptography is the
> > > fact that nobody knows what trumps the enemy is holding in the way of
> > > secret advances they may have made in cracking ciphers such as the RSA
> > > cipher and AES that hitherto governments regarded as unbreakably safe..
> > > Only theoretically unbreakable ciphers can be considered totally safe
> > > in this respect.
>
> > ...
>
> > > The ciphers to hand are intended to be nothing more than feasibility
> > > models that say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” i.e. they
> > > demonstrate the realisation of the mathematical claim into de facto
> > > ciphers.  I have no pretensions to software engineering or
> > > infrastructure management but my claim is that only when the
> > > mathematical core is demonstrated as being theoretically unbreakable,
> > > is all else then made possible and not before this.
>
> > As always, I am generally supportive of efforts to increase the pot of
> > viable encryption.  For each crypto-system the same questions remain:
>
> > 1) Is it a merely a teaching tool, and if not to what level does it
> > aspire to be directed?
>
> > 2 What do you feel are the limitations and major strengths of the
> > system?
>
> > 3) Can and has it be easily be demonstrated to actually work in some
> > format that is easy for anyone to test even if such is not the most
> > ideal configuration?
>
> > 4) Is it throughly tested to be functional by several people who may
> > have no prior technical knowledge of cryptography but can at least
> > follow simple instructions?
>
> > 5) What are the principles of the algorithm in more or less common
> > terms easily understood and have been fairly well explained in return
> > by such a listener...in short, did he get it?
>
> > 6) What are any and all objections to it whether they make sense or
> > not and what is your learned response to those objections?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi W.T,
>
> Be my guest,
>
> Re vector cryptography - download the program sourcedcode with
> included compiler and test it yourself (link provided).
>
> Re - scalable key cryptography - the down load is being prepared and
> should uploaded about wednesday this coming week - the theory is fully
> expounded there already.
>
> Maybe this is just some of your usual rhetoric ?
>
> either way good to hear - adacrypt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

PS - given that theoretically unbreakable cryptography is as rare as
rockin' horse droppings you sound a bit patronising ? - adacrypt
From: WTShaw on 4 Jul 2010 10:03
On Jul 4, 8:35 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2:10 pm, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 7:47 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There will always be a need for the cheapest cryptography available
> > > that will serve the needs of commerce at some right price and give the
> > > required degree of security for the required cover time. Anything more
> > > than the required degree of security and the required cover time in
> > > commerce is redundant cover and can be a very expensive waste. In the
> > > case of national security however cover time is never-ending and the
> > > degree of security should be nothing less than theoretically
> > > unbreakable – i.e. perfect secrecy of communication of information at
> > > least.
>
> > ....
>
> > > The aim here therefore, is to create theoretically unbreakable
> > > cryptography at any cost for national security and hope that this cost
> > > will be acceptably low at the same time for commerce to be able to
> > > afford it also in all day-to-day running, otherwise commerce is just
> > > as well off staying with existing cryptography that is being called
> > > ‘practically’ unbreakable. Although only ‘practically’ unbreakable in
> > > name that cryptography is virtually unbreakable in practice. The only
> > > disturbing thing about ‘practically unbreakable’ cryptography is the
> > > fact that nobody knows what trumps the enemy is holding in the way of
> > > secret advances they may have made in cracking ciphers such as the RSA
> > > cipher and AES that hitherto governments regarded as unbreakably safe..
> > > Only theoretically unbreakable ciphers can be considered totally safe
> > > in this respect.
>
> > ...
>
> > > The ciphers to hand are intended to be nothing more than feasibility
> > > models that say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” i.e. they
> > > demonstrate the realisation of the mathematical claim into de facto
> > > ciphers.  I have no pretensions to software engineering or
> > > infrastructure management but my claim is that only when the
> > > mathematical core is demonstrated as being theoretically unbreakable,
> > > is all else then made possible and not before this.
>
> > As always, I am generally supportive of efforts to increase the pot of
> > viable encryption.  For each crypto-system the same questions remain:
>
> > 1) Is it a merely a teaching tool, and if not to what level does it
> > aspire to be directed?
>
> > 2 What do you feel are the limitations and major strengths of the
> > system?
>
> > 3) Can and has it be easily be demonstrated to actually work in some
> > format that is easy for anyone to test even if such is not the most
> > ideal configuration?
>
> > 4) Is it throughly tested to be functional by several people who may
> > have no prior technical knowledge of cryptography but can at least
> > follow simple instructions?
>
> > 5) What are the principles of the algorithm in more or less common
> > terms easily understood and have been fairly well explained in return
> > by such a listener...in short, did he get it?
>
> > 6) What are any and all objections to it whether they make sense or
> > not and what is your learned response to those objections?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi W.T,
>
> Be my guest,
>
> Re vector cryptography - download the program sourcedcode with
> included compiler and test it yourself (link provided).
>
> Re - scalable key cryptography - the down load is being prepared and
> should uploaded about wednesday this coming week - the theory is fully
> expounded there already.
>
> Maybe this is just some of your usual rhetoric ?
>
> either way good to hear - adacrypt

The list does not mean that you have not complied with part of it forI
share many of your goals. However, few people will venture into your
language of choice. Note that there is no mention of so-called experts
in that list because most in the herd are so lopsided it's a wonder
that they can even walk.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: verify symmetric cipher key?
Next: My Cryptography that is Currently on the Joke-of-the-Day site