Explicit Encapsulation Within the Ciphertext or Implicit Markup Database.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Are online password managers safe to use?
Next: Explicit Encapsulation Within the Ciphertext or Implicit Markup Database.
From: adacrypt on 19 Apr 2010 11:58 These are the proposed new broader crypto classes. Explicit Encapsulation. All existing mainstream cryptography belongs in this class in which the plaintext is transformed and encapsulated directly as cipher text and later recovered piecemeal by some special means. The ciphertext string is rather like a zip-file that requires some extraordinary opener. That opener is there for the finding by any cryptanalyst, however. This cryptography is given practically unbreakable class only by the authorities. Mutual Database Cryptography. The latter of these two classes uses the cipher text as nothing more than markup language that indexes the arrays of the unique databases that the entities share by mutual arrangement thus giving the required structure to the messagetext. Decryption is impossible to all others hence it is being ascribed theoretically unbreakable class in terms of the industry standards. Intercepting the ciphertext yields nothing more than worthless implicit data to any cryptanalyst. - adacrypt
From: Richard Outerbridge on 19 Apr 2010 16:07 In article <13473722-2219-4592-a678-fef834ef34c1(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, adacrypt <austin.obyrne(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
From: Maaartin on 19 Apr 2010 17:07
On Apr 19, 5:58 pm, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Mutual Database Cryptography. > The latter of these two classes uses the cipher text as nothing more > than markup language that indexes the arrays of the unique databases > that the entities share by mutual arrangement thus giving the required > structure to the messagetext. Either is your "database" long enough to be used as OTP, or not. In former case, why to bother with anything else, you can do neither better nor simpler than OTP. Otherwise, show us any reason WHY your indexing should be any secure. > Decryption is impossible to all others How does it come? Imagine a message consisting of lowercase english letters only and the "database" consisting of only 26 distinct characters. What you get from "Mutual Database Cryptography" is monoalphabetic cipher, quite far from theoretically or practically unbreakable. With longer "database" it gets better, but nowhere to unbreakable. |