Prev: Cryptography Currently on the Table.
Next: A more complex polyalphabetic substitution processing
From: Stewart Malik on 8 Jul 2010 02:25
> A proper cipher should be able to read in plaintext from batch files
> that are prepared by non-specialists and output ciphertext to similar
> files for electronic transmission without any user assistance. At the
> far end i.e. at decryption time, it should also be able to read in
> ciphertext from external files that have been sent as email and output
> messagetext. It must be able to do all this without human help within
> the computer program alone.  Secure communications should be reduced
> to something akin to word processing instead of being what we know it
> to day – that will eventually happen in my view.

The cipher that you describe above will never exist as their will
always be attacks breaking certain cryptography and as such
cryptography will be enhanced because of said attacks. If their were
no attackers then we wouldn't need to monitor cryptography and we
could implement a simple cipher into the basis of every protocol
however if their were no attackers then there would be no need to
encrypt anything in the first place.

Also SSL uses different ciphers to encrypt the stream I would
certainly call this large scale usage of Cryptography without general
user knowledge.

Go away and once you've come up with some cryptographic views that are
practical in today's world then maybe you can come back.
From: Noob on 8 Jul 2010 09:01
Stewart Malik wrote:

> The cipher [...] will never exist as their will [...]

Whose will? ;-)
From: rossum on 11 Jul 2010 05:46
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:56:59 -0700 (PDT), adacrypt
<austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>A proper cipher should be able to read in plaintext from batch files
>that are prepared by non-specialists and output ciphertext to similar
>files for electronic transmission without any user assistance.
A proper cypher should be able to read in plaintext from any file in
any format and on decryption reproduce that same file byte for byte.

Your system fails to do that because it cannot handle every possible
plaintext byte and because it cannot always reproduce the original
file on decryption.

rossum

From: Thomas on 11 Jul 2010 08:38
Hello Adacrypt,
according to your recent posts in this newsgroup, you seem to
repeatedly fail to make your point regarding your so-called
unbreakable cryptography. Hence, surely something is wrong with *you*
and your explanations, and not with those who spend some of their
precious time into reading your nonsense ... In order to prevent
wasting some more ascii kilobytes into nonsensical technobabble,
perhaps you could ask yourself, "sure, I am talking, but am I actually
saying anything ?"

As long as you haven't actually made it clear what you say is not
snake oil, every single soul on earth is going to take it as such, so
if you actually have something useful and interesting to say, just
take some time and typeset a nice document and submit it to some
cryptographic newspaper, hell, it would have taken a lot more time
than writing in this newsgroup!
From: Thomas on 11 Jul 2010 08:40
Uhm, read "a lot less time" in the last line, that was a typo. I can't
figure out how to edit on this newsgroup, so please forgive me for
this offending double post.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Cryptography Currently on the Table.
Next: A more complex polyalphabetic substitution processing