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 whats 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 |