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: J.D. on 31 Mar 2010 23:17 On Mar 31, 9:59 pm, Sebastian Garth <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 6:38 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 > > I don't think you understand the principle of the OTP quite so well, > and how exactly it is applied in practice. Given two bits XOR'ed > together, one of DATA, and the other of CODE, it is *impossible* to > infer their state by analyzing the output bit. Period. So the OTP is > clearly unbreakable. Unfortunately, practical matters of key > distribution make the OTP an unsuitable "complete" encryption system, > and as such it is generally used in conjunction with other processes. > Typically, the data is first compressed. A public key exchange > algorithm is used to generate a block of data (the "pad"). This block > is finally combined with the original data (the OTP step). That's more > or less how it works. > > As far as your text-based cryptosystem is concerned, it sounds a hell > of a lot less secure than, say, RSA, DHA, or similar algorithms that > work with large integers. Just a guess, though. > > Cheers, > > - Sebastian As you shall no doubt see soon enough, attempting to educate adacrypt is a lot like playing checkers with the Moon -- a pointless endeavor, and one only the insane or the incredibly bored persist in.
From: WTShaw on 1 Apr 2010 06:55 On Mar 31, 8:59 pm, Sebastian Garth <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 6:38 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 > > I don't think you understand the principle of the OTP quite so well, > and how exactly it is applied in practice. Given two bits XOR'ed > together, one of DATA, and the other of CODE, it is *impossible* to > infer their state by analyzing the output bit. Period. So the OTP is > clearly unbreakable. Unfortunately, practical matters of key > distribution make the OTP an unsuitable "complete" encryption system, > and as such it is generally used in conjunction with other processes. > Typically, the data is first compressed. A public key exchange > algorithm is used to generate a block of data (the "pad"). This block > is finally combined with the original data (the OTP step). That's more > or less how it works. > > As far as your text-based cryptosystem is concerned, it sounds a hell > of a lot less secure than, say, RSA, DHA, or similar algorithms that > work with large integers. Just a guess, though. > > Cheers, > > - Sebastian Keep in mind that the original OTP used alphabetic values not XOR. I fact I had some discussions a couple of years before he died with the hero who broke it because of a twice or more used pad.
From: WTShaw on 1 Apr 2010 06:56 On Mar 31, 8:59 pm, Sebastian Garth <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 6:38 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 > > I don't think you understand the principle of the OTP quite so well, > and how exactly it is applied in practice. Given two bits XOR'ed > together, one of DATA, and the other of CODE, it is *impossible* to > infer their state by analyzing the output bit. Period. So the OTP is > clearly unbreakable. Unfortunately, practical matters of key > distribution make the OTP an unsuitable "complete" encryption system, > and as such it is generally used in conjunction with other processes. > Typically, the data is first compressed. A public key exchange > algorithm is used to generate a block of data (the "pad"). This block > is finally combined with the original data (the OTP step). That's more > or less how it works. > > As far as your text-based cryptosystem is concerned, it sounds a hell > of a lot less secure than, say, RSA, DHA, or similar algorithms that > work with large integers. Just a guess, though. > > Cheers, > > - Sebastian Keep in mind that the original OTP used alphabetic values not XOR.
From: Maaartin on 1 Apr 2010 07:44 On Apr 1, 12:56 pm, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Keep in mind that the original OTP used alphabetic values not XOR. Keep in mind, that it does NOT matter at all. Its inventor was working with letters, since he had no computer, that's all. You can use any set and any operation bijective in both arguments (e.g., ADD or XOR). With "bijective in both arguments" I mean bijective in the first arguments for aby fixed value of the second and vice versa.
From: WTShaw on 2 Apr 2010 02:44
On Apr 1, 6:44 am, Maaartin <grajc...(a)seznam.cz> wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:56 pm, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Keep in mind that the original OTP used alphabetic values not XOR. > > Keep in mind, that it does NOT matter at all. Its inventor was working > with letters, since he had no computer, that's all. You can use any > set and any operation bijective in both arguments (e.g., ADD or XOR). > With "bijective in both arguments" I mean bijective in the first > arguments for aby fixed value of the second and vice versa. XOR is a binary operation, base 2 and harmonic bases. |