Prev: Trying to explain A, B and C in Cryptology
Next: Shamir's Identity Based Encryption -- consensus
From: adacrypt on 20 Apr 2010 02:56
On Apr 19, 9:07 pm, Richard Outerbridge <ou...(a)interlog.com> wrote:
> In article
> <13473722-2219-4592-a678-fef834ef3...(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.
>
> > Explicit Encapsulation.
>
> This would seem to be what was classically called a 'cipher'.
>
> > Mutual Database Cryptography.
>
> This seems to describe what was classically called a 'code'.
>
> Why do we need "... new broader crypto classes"?
>
> outer
Hi,
< This would seem to be what was classically called a 'cipher'.
Yes - to date there is not an unbreakable one in existence in main
stream cryptography.

< This seems to describe what was classically called a 'code'.

On reflection that seems fair comment also.

This stuff comes on the back of a lot of earlier work that may have
escaped your notice - I reckon it is here to stay however long it may
take to gain eventual recognition - that could be fifty years but
happen it certainly will! - the main stumbling block is intransigence
on the part of a dishonest establishment - there is no hiding
mathematical proof at the same time.

In case you are interested : see

http://www.adacrypt.com for "A New Approach to Cryptography" and
http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk for " Scalable Key Cryptography"

Why do we need "... new broader crypto classes"?
We don't *need * these classes per se - its more a notational fact of
life that they exist and may be here to stay.

In my view it matters little if the means of achieving perfect
security is a cipher or a code if either one is provably unbreakable.
- Cheers - adacrypt
From: adacrypt on 20 Apr 2010 03:59
On Apr 19, 9:07 pm, Richard Outerbridge <ou...(a)interlog.com> wrote:
> In article
> <13473722-2219-4592-a678-fef834ef3...(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.
>
> > Explicit Encapsulation.
>
> This would seem to be what was classically called a 'cipher'.
>
> > Mutual Database Cryptography.
>
> This seems to describe what was classically called a 'code'.
>
> Why do we need "... new broader crypto classes"?
>
> outer

Hi again,

Forgot to mention the most salient thing about this discussion.

I contend that unbreakable ciphers are virtually impossible to write
(hope this doesn't open another can of argumentive worms) whereas
Mutual Database crypto schemes are easy by comparison and indeed many
will evolve from other readers in this news group in the years ahead.
I envisage unbreakable crypto schemes using database technology
becoming very common and using all sorts of mathematical basis to
create the 'markup' style ciphertext that it uses - it is making
proper use of the computer science available to us at last -
shamefully, that has not been done up to now - regards - adacrypt
From: adacrypt on 20 Apr 2010 07:58
On Apr 19, 9:07 pm, Richard Outerbridge <ou...(a)interlog.com> wrote:
> In article
> <13473722-2219-4592-a678-fef834ef3...(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.
>
> > Explicit Encapsulation.
>
> This would seem to be what was classically called a 'cipher'.
>
> > Mutual Database Cryptography.
>
> This seems to describe what was classically called a 'code'.
>
> Why do we need "... new broader crypto classes"?
>
> outer

Summarising:

< These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.

Taking into account the points made on both sides perhaps these
'broader classes' reduce to *cipher* cryptography and *code*
cryptography with license. - your contribution has been useful in
highlighting this distinction - I cannot think of a suitably damning
analogy for ciphers other than it's like sending cash throught the
post instaed of a cheque - adacrypt
From: adacrypt on 20 Apr 2010 09:55
On Apr 20, 12:58 pm, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:07 pm, Richard Outerbridge <ou...(a)interlog.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <13473722-2219-4592-a678-fef834ef3...(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >  adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.
>
> > > Explicit Encapsulation.
>
> > This would seem to be what was classically called a 'cipher'.
>
> > > Mutual Database Cryptography.
>
> > This seems to describe what was classically called a 'code'.
>
> > Why do we need "... new broader crypto classes"?
>
> > outer
>
> Summarising:
>
> < These are the proposed new broader crypto classes.
>
> Taking into account the points made on both sides perhaps these
> 'broader classes' reduce to *cipher* cryptography and  *code*
> cryptography with license. - your contribution has been useful in
> highlighting this distinction - I cannot think of a suitably damning
> analogy for ciphers other than it's like sending cash throught the
> post instaed of a cheque - adacrypt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On reflection -this would not be technically correct and could lead to
pedantic arguments -adacrypt
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Trying to explain A, B and C in Cryptology
Next: Shamir's Identity Based Encryption -- consensus