Foiling the known-plaintext attacks
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: How cool is this?
Next: The Winds of Change.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 17 May 2010 11:20 Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > Maaartin wrote: > >> I generated the 4 int parameters and 100 ints as plaintext. I >> encrypted it and gave the plaintext and the ciphertext to the solver. >> The solver computed the 4 int parameters. I repeated it all 10 times. >> >> >> I recommend reading the last posting by Bryan carefully, his >> explanation is very nice. He made two sort of typos, it should read >> "(number_of_unknowns - number_of_equations) is still 55." >> and >> "(unknowns - equations) drops to 47." >> but it's obvious. > > O.k. That means you are ready to accept my original offer as given > in my post of 29.04.2010 19:02, right? We could start to negotiate > a concrete contract now, i.e. discussing whether there are tiny > details that need yet to be settled. Mr. Maaartin, I sincerely hope that you are making progress in your work. I like simply to remind you that my offer will expire on 1st June. Regards, M. K. Shen
From: Bryan on 17 May 2010 22:56 Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > Mr. Maaartin, I sincerely hope that you are making progress in your > work. I like simply to remind you that my offer will expire on 1st June. How has your own work on analyzing your schemes been going, Mr. Shen? I went through and example, to show how an attacker obtains more equations than unknowns, which seemed to be the part you thought impossible. Given that, what have you been able to solve? Any results to report yet? -- --Bryan
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 18 May 2010 03:47 Bryan wrote: > Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >> Mr. Maaartin, I sincerely hope that you are making progress in your >> work. I like simply to remind you that my offer will expire on 1st June. > > How has your own work on analyzing your schemes been going, Mr. Shen? > I went through and example, to show how an attacker obtains more > equations than unknowns, which seemed to be the part you thought > impossible. Given that, what have you been able to solve? Any results > to report yet? In the other thread "Dynamic Hillcipher", which is the predecessor of this thread, I wrote: I should be grateful to learn concrete hints of techniques of attack if any. and in the first post of this thread I wrote: As layman I have yet no clue at all how to proceed from that equation to predicting the PRNGs. I suppose that answered very well the questions you asked. Mr. Maartin in his last post reported an evidently spectacular success with his analysis techninique, which appeared to be based on an idea similar to that of yours but he independently developed. This is to be clearly seen from the wording of his last post. Note that he was able to at once pick out a (tiny) mistake of yours. But anyway the challenge is for Mr. Maaartin personally. Please don't interfere and let him express his opinions himslef in that matter. You are free to assist Mr. Maaartin, though, through providing him scientific concrete hints. In fact that's welcome (see a previous post of mine), excepting that you shouldn't give "exhaustive descriptions". M. K. Shen
From: unruh on 18 May 2010 12:33 On 2010-05-18, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Bryan wrote: >> Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >>> Mr. Maaartin, I sincerely hope that you are making progress in your >>> work. I like simply to remind you that my offer will expire on 1st June. >> >> How has your own work on analyzing your schemes been going, Mr. Shen? >> I went through and example, to show how an attacker obtains more >> equations than unknowns, which seemed to be the part you thought >> impossible. Given that, what have you been able to solve? Any results >> to report yet? > > In the other thread "Dynamic Hillcipher", which is the predecessor of > this thread, I wrote: > > I should be grateful to learn concrete hints of techniques of attack > if any. So I guess we should regard this as "less than very encouraging". > > and in the first post of this thread I wrote: > > As layman I have yet no clue at all how to proceed from that equation > to predicting the PRNGs. > > I suppose that answered very well the questions you asked. > > Mr. Maartin in his last post reported an evidently spectacular success > with his analysis techninique, which appeared to be based on an idea > similar to that of yours but he independently developed. This is to > be clearly seen from the wording of his last post. Note that he was > able to at once pick out a (tiny) mistake of yours. > > But anyway the challenge is for Mr. Maaartin personally. Please don't > interfere and let him express his opinions himslef in that matter. > You are free to assist Mr. Maaartin, though, through providing him > scientific concrete hints. In fact that's welcome (see a previous post > of mine), excepting that you shouldn't give "exhaustive descriptions". > And now as a layman you are going to direct other people in how they do their research! Sheesh.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 18 May 2010 15:09
unruh wrote: > Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >> >> I should be grateful to learn concrete hints of techniques of attack >> if any. > > So I guess we should regard this as "less than very encouraging". The citation from the researchers you indirectly referred to, namely: "Unfortunately we do not have a security proof, and we leave it as an open problem to find an attack or prove its security," undeniably applies here as well. Didn't I make that very clear at the "very" beginning of my threads? (I explicitly wondered that my first thread had generated very much "winds".) M. K. Shen |