New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
Next: The Winds of Change - The Three Faces of Cryptography.
From: Gordon Burditt on 12 Jun 2010 17:19 >drive or hard drives byte by byte in repetitive read operations adding >to the wear and tear to your hard drive. Why would you think that accessing a file, say, 64*K* at a time would cause more wear and tear on the hard drive than accessing a file a terabyte at a time would? Swap, swap, swap. Page, page, page. In general, you *can't* access a hard drive byte by byte (at the device-driver level), you read a block at a time, minimum. >Imagine a read write >operation involving three files accessing one hard drive. This way >the equipment is less taxed. Of course the OS does not access the >hardware byte by byte but doing it this way does minimize the access >operations. > >175MB x 2 = 350MB swap, swap, swap, page, page, page. The first file chunk will likely page mostly out of memory while the second file chunk is being read, even on a machine with *only* 1G of memory and something else besides that program running. A unitasking OS is really ancient, even for cell phones and PDAs. >is chosen because some users have limited RAM and I >want the program to run on as many computer configurations as >possible. If you want your program to run on systems with limited RAM, write the program so it will fit in small-memory model DOS (64*K* total). >The size of the XOR program is due to the fact that it is a stand- >alone program and this is needed to provide all the associated >libraries to make for a GUI. It does not need any of your operating >system's libraries, either. Why does an XOR program *need* a GUI? >I mean, how wary can one be of a simple XOR program that can be proven >to work exactly as described? Spyware? Adware? Also viruses, destructive behavior such as formatting the hard drive, and wondering what the heck that much excess code is actually doing? Scanning my hard drive for credit card numbers? >Why didn't you just ask. Asking the program author whether a program is spyware is pretty pointless.
From: Maaartin on 12 Jun 2010 19:37 On Jun 12, 3:21 pm, Bryan <bryanjugglercryptograp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > So what's the optimal file I/O size? Not worth figuring. There's a > wide range that's not far off the optimal, today somewhere in, say, 4 > KB to 1 MB. I disagree. For sure, it's not 175MB, the optimum seems to be somewhere in the indicated range, but you can gain more then a factor of 2 when using the optimal buffer size, at least in Java. I created a 16GB file and read it using different buffer sizes, I repeated the test twice: blocksize seconds seconds 256 277 275 4096 301 255 65536 135 136 1048576 236 237 16777216 217 215 It clearly shows that sizes above about 1MB makes it slower because of the cache, I'm not sure what happens at the small sizes (as the system calls made by Java are independent of the size since everything goes through File.read() returning a single byte).
From: jmorton123 on 13 Jun 2010 08:44 Throwing dice and shuffling cards is also pure mathematics. And so is the flapping of your lips. Yet people usually talk about shuffling cards and throwing dice, plain and simple, especially when it most accurately describes the action. There is good reason the bible admonishes those that would call another man a fool. Can you offer us any constructive criticism regarding the theory presented in the BulletProof Help file called, The Grand Theory? JM On Jun 11, 11:05 pm, "Joseph Ashwood" <ashw...(a)msn.com> wrote: > "Mr. B" <n...(a)supplied.com> wrote in message > > news:huua1o$sb5$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > "Although the random number generation process can be described > > mathematically, it does not use any mathematical formulas to generate the > > random numbers. All the processes are unbiased and require true random > > user > > input: the key. The only way to reproduce the random numbers without the > > key > > is by brute-force trial and error." > > > A PRNG that involves no mathematics? > > Good catch. Now I remember this fool. He's unable to grasp the simple fact > that a computer is a mathematic device, and if it runs on a computer it is > math. No other analysis is necessary, the source is worthless. > > I should've guessed when he agreed with my commentary that stopped just > short of directly calling him an idiot. > Joe
From: jmorton123 on 13 Jun 2010 09:25 Nor would it do any good to tell you here that I have done no such thing: nevertheless, what I've described is all that there is to the freeware. I'll do a swan dive off the Golden Gate Bridge if I did and let you video tape it. I used Embarcadero C++ Builder 2010 as my IDE and compiler if this helps. JM On Jun 12, 6:09 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:04:09 -0700 (PDT), jmorton123 > ><<snip>> > > - Show quoted text -
From: Tom St Denis on 13 Jun 2010 09:36
On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, jmorton123 <jmorton...(a)rock.com> wrote: > Okay, I haven't heard from anyone that has a problem with the > theoretical security of BulletProof Random Binary Number Generator. I personally don't care about the security of your application. Aside from the fact that I don't run Windows anywhere I just don't have need for this class of application. That said, from the compiled code we can't verify that your application actually does what you claim it does [and nothing more]. Tom |