Updating the Historic OTP.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: A C-code for permutation polynomials mod 2^n
Next: On selection of polynomials for the Multiple Polynomial Quadratic Sieve
From: Bruce Stephens on 23 Mar 2010 14:46 adacrypt <austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> writes: [...] > A first step in this direction is to look at p.15 of “Applied > Cryptography” by Bruce Schneier – he states an equation of the OTP > there and this can be taken as a starting point in your understanding > of what comes later. To just about everybody, the next natural step would be to look at p.16, where he shows how to use OTP on binary data (and explains why OTP isn't very useful, most of the time). Binary data is much more useful, while obviously including ASCII. Why didn't you turn the page? [...]
From: adacrypt on 24 Mar 2010 04:01 On Mar 23, 11:38 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > In order to become viable in mainstream cryptography and indeed become > very, very useful all round, the historic one-time pad must become > numbertheoretic instead of being merely lexical as at the present > time. It can then become an extremely efficient, theoretically > unbreakable cipher. One of the best on the table, no less. > > ASCII makes that possible. > > The historic OTP is an adaptation of the Vigenere Cipher of the year > 1586 or thereabouts. > > A first step in this direction is to look at p.15 of Applied > Cryptography by Bruce Schneier he states an equation of the OTP > there and this can be taken as a starting point in your understanding > of what comes later. > > The next step is a new adaptation of the Vigenere cipher in which the > square is populated by the writable subset of ASCII i.e. the > characters numbered 95 to 126 inclusive. > > Combining both of these changes i.e. expressing the equation of the > Vigenere square by means of its mathematical equation and then > populating the square with the writable alphanumeric subset of > elements of ASCII instead of the 26 alphabetic characters of the > English language opens the way for a lot of mathematical research that > the reader may well want to subscribe to with your own invention. Any > branch of mathematics could be useful in this respect. > > I have written two independent adaptations of the Vigenere square that > are inevitably look-alikes of the historic OTP (but are not OTPs per > se, mark you carefully). These are ASCII_Pad onhttp://www.adacrypt.com > and A Scalable_ Key Cipher onhttp://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk. > > I believe this is the beginning and not the end of this new innovative > cryptography and indeed there are lots more that the enterprising > reader may look for. Go for it - is what I say! > > It is time to stop playing with the hackneyed old box, the OTP is much > loved but has served its purpose, although that has escaped > understanding by a lot of people whether you understand the historic > OTP or not it is time to draw a line under it now and move on - > continuing to quote it is 'barking up the wrong tree'. > > What I am saying here is that the Vigenere Cipher of 1586 is back in > serious contention and suitably equipped readers should try writing > some new computer-driven ciphers. > > Rabid, blind loyalty in nostalgic supporting of the defunct OTP should > stop now it has become a useless cult, the OTP will never be > forgotten but it is time to move on now to better things. Dont fret, > the OTP will always have a place in the archives but it is not worth > anything more it is futile arguing about it. > > Again. These ciphers are ASCII_modulated Vigenere Ciphers they are > modern adaptations of that once very powerful cipher. They are not > OTPs although they conform to the same key-length and one-time usage > criteria of any stream cipher that must be satisfied by all ciphers > that claim to be theoretically unbreakable (p.21 Definitions. > Handbook of Applied Cryptography) according to the industry > standards. > > Its time to get it right! > > After the revolution !! > - adacrypt Correction: > characters numbered 95 to 126 inclusive. This should read; characters numbered 32 to 126 inclusive => 95 characters
From: Mark Murray on 24 Mar 2010 04:33 On 24/03/2010 08:01, adacrypt wrote: > characters numbered 32 to 126 inclusive => 95 characters Why? Any binary will do. ASCII, EBCDIC(yuk!), UTF-8, UTF-16, UniCode, KOI8-R, JPEG, MP3 or whatever. The message needs to have no structure apart from that agreed upon by the communicants. The OTP then views the message as a stream of bits and XORs the key (a bunch of random bits as long as the message, and shared with the receiver) to create the cryptogram. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: rossum on 24 Mar 2010 11:17 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:33:21 +0000, Mark Murray <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote: >On 24/03/2010 08:01, adacrypt wrote: >> characters numbered 32 to 126 inclusive => 95 characters > >Why? > >Any binary will do. ASCII, EBCDIC(yuk!), UTF-8, UTF-16, UniCode, >KOI8-R, JPEG, MP3 or whatever. The message needs to have no structure >apart from that agreed upon by the communicants. > >The OTP then views the message as a stream of bits and XORs the >key (a bunch of random bits as long as the message, and shared >with the receiver) to create the cryptogram. > >M Adacrypt seems to have an obsession with ASCII and appears to be unable to realise that dealing with general binary data is far more useful and covers a far wider range of situations. Perhaps this is due to an overreliance on pen and paper cyphers. He does mention Vigenere a lot but never seems to make the leap to a 256 x 256 Vigenere grid for byte level encoding. rossum
From: David Eather on 24 Mar 2010 16:19
On 25/03/2010 1:17 AM, rossum wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:33:21 +0000, Mark Murray<w.h.oami(a)example.com> > wrote: > >> On 24/03/2010 08:01, adacrypt wrote: >>> characters numbered 32 to 126 inclusive => 95 characters >> >> Why? >> >> Any binary will do. ASCII, EBCDIC(yuk!), UTF-8, UTF-16, UniCode, >> KOI8-R, JPEG, MP3 or whatever. The message needs to have no structure >> apart from that agreed upon by the communicants. >> >> The OTP then views the message as a stream of bits and XORs the >> key (a bunch of random bits as long as the message, and shared >> with the receiver) to create the cryptogram. >> >> M > Adacrypt seems to have an obsession with ASCII and appears to be > unable to realise that dealing with general binary data is far more > useful and covers a far wider range of situations. > > Perhaps this is due to an overreliance on pen and paper cyphers. He > does mention Vigenere a lot but never seems to make the leap to a 256 > x 256 Vigenere grid for byte level encoding. > > rossum > He also may not know that for economy of transmission a message may (or more likely will) be compressed - making the ability to send 0-255 8-bit bytes a necessity. |