Prev: Collecting true randomness from natural language texts
Next: Call for participants
From: David Eather on 5 Apr 2010 07:59
On 5/04/2010 6:50 PM, WTShaw wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:17 am, David Eather<eat...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
> ..
>>
>> It very clever and all. Now if only you could get around the fact that
>> in properly implemented cryptography it is useless and pointless and you
>> can't see that.
>
> Problem: Make a pad of 2600 Characters from this string.

Excuse me, but this post was about your perception that passwords were
stored on a system and your idea to obfuscate them to "solve" this
"problem".

All it shows is that you do not understand properly implemented modern
cryptography which *does not* store a password but a non reversible hash
function and this makes your "problem" non-existent and your "solution"
to the problem totally useless.

To this you claimed that the hash function would give away the size of
the password, which also shows you do not understand cryptographic hash
functions, which normally put out a fixed sized hash. So, all the rest
you are now producing is worthless stuff to fix problems that only exist
in your mind caused by your lack of any understanding of cryptography.

If you want to stick to pen and pencil all well and good, but post to a
group that is interested in it. Please note how few people respond to
your posts and you might understand how worthless they are to a
mathematically and computer based cryptography group that relies on
analysis for its results and opinions.

You would be better served by either lurking to see the answers to
problems or genuinly asking the question yourself "how do cryptographers
implement password functions?" etc.


>
> There are many possible protocols. There are many PXF's.
> (This one can be reduced to entering the key string, a message to be
> encrypted
> or ciphertext to be decrypted, and executing either of those two
> options.)
>
> 1) Use "Projection" to pad out source for 100 permutations in base 27.
>
> 2) Use "Counted Hash Chaining" to produce 100 permutations in base
> 27.
>
> 3) "Impress and Rotate." I'll use the word "permutations."
>
> 4) "Sort" permutations alphabetically which is not reversable.
>
> 5) "Impress and Rotate." I'll use "/" since it is not a desired
> character.
>
> 6) You now have a pad of 2600 characters if you filter out "�/"from
> each perm.
> (Usually, you would never actually see the pad but the choice to see
> is desirable.)
>
> �/zpdtfmwabgqxckjryulhniveso
> �/cpgqtsezlmijuxndhfyrkabvwo
> �/zeimacrboujkstvglwpxhnqdfy
> �/adcsezfmpuvbgkhwxtlnyjoqir
> �/giexbukoqmnlyrsjadzctpfvwh
> �/opjeakzlwvdscmrntibxfyqugh
> �/oukijpzavbeqfltcwdmnsxhgyr
> �/hqcidxoflrspjmgwukebvayztn
> �/mxhizopcdyjebkwntaqfgulrvs
> �/cvmkarhpnefwjoxlyqstiuzbdg
> �/wmpznksauqrbtvcxdojyhgelfi
> �/wnykiugabjocrdzxvptelfqhsm
> �/cvztgxyqphrasfuwlijdembkno
> �/kytzafquncvemglrophwsdijxb
> �/ytazcfgunbvimwseolqjkpxrdh
> �/sthpairjwfdugkylvnbzcqxeom
> �/qirsacjmykdhptewxnzfolubgv
> �/kmptaeobvdqyzfgrshwicunlxj
> �/fmcnkvaqhosprigtdbuwzjexyl
> �/aponbyqkefgijsmhtzudlxwcvr
> �/kpiqecnymrvszalwxhubtdjfgo
> �/amdvpiqefcjrnkbxgwysthlzuo
> �/kluvasmfnithbzxdepoyqjrwgc
> �/dosziuvrhaelbntxwjfgyckmqp
> �/cndfxlotkpgsyaiuvzqjbwmrhe
> �/yzrpasdtwojleuhvmcbiqkgnfx
> �/pkqcfxlurmdzgaivwhnjbytoes
> �/lijermfdgkahynwuvzoxtqcpbs
> �/ejrykawpqmghsontlucxizbvdf
> �/nwujrsxdkflteaimhopzvgbqyc
> �/mkytdhezqgipljnxruowasfbvc
> �/xrnsajubzmoghklpcievdytqfw
> �/ebsghvftwdxoanlqyjzmrukpci
> �/xfvkqastlibmynzwcujogpedrh
> �/gjctodyqhnauviebxmlfzwpkrs
> �/geixuavjqnbkfchzryolmsdpwt
> �/ykavbgotemcqdfzlriupnhsjwx
> �/ghrvasqtwmknueyzobfixpcljd
> �/pcgsbikmnvrlwdxjtaeoyhzqfu
> �/hnwxadozgseriftklpmubvycqj
> �/jhpmdeivnxfkbwaoqsrygltczu
> �/otambvpwkycedlrufnxgqjszhi
> �/jvwcskneitgazlpqxhmyudrfob
> �/nzocxadwiyrtepghkfqljmusvb
> �/dxemhgytkzsoiawuvnfbpcqrjl
> �/deihajrkyncfluopxsvgwqtmzb
> �/vzlghbumckdiaopyesfqxntwjr
> �/tuiaqcwdbnsxejyvhorlfgpzmk
> �/wotpahzukdvgsexqrliymjnbfc
> �/bzdfuhavrgwmixcpsqknotylej
> �/pbaeuqnmgsyzhftivjdocwxkrl
> �/lydofhnarzismtbckpguwvqejx
> �/dgsaitymkrwbcluxpjqvzehfno
> �/igtcnzouedpjqyhfvawxksblrm
> �/sbvdexjwyizracfnotuglpkqhm
> �/njaubhslfmcwdgzkxytvreoipq
> �/tahcbuiovyrdsmjkewnpqlxzfg
> �/wiujtqyngkalomxbfzcprsvdeh
> �/xfohaltbjkpvymnqczdrgiseuw
> �/otirafbljpqxukyszegmdhnvwc
> �/efnwaogurbdjlphiksqyvmtczx
> �/wxksadlmeygntpuhibqvzrfcjo
> �/qlopcamdwezvhjxfrgkbnsyitu
> �/ewfzuixrgkhybalnjmvqcstopd
> �/crhdsitmfywnujvxpekbzlgaqo
> �/kvcwaqornebyxiglmsphtfudzj
> �/jhpzqmcdaulernfobvixstwgyk
> �/ghteavioywlpjbkmrucfxdznsq
> �/rhjyczigqdbseaufolmvtpwkxn
> �/jifqgkrmshwantcobzxlduvype
> �/gkulabovxrwepchmyztnisjfdq
> �/djayqskubvwelcfzgxtmnphrio
> �/bfogavnpkuqjzwcslmxrdyehit
> �/ayzetbwxluckspijfnqgmhrdvo
> �/xmjupstgfqhaivlrncydeowzbk
> �/oxjtzhefupimcaqygrwklbsvnd
> �/bmnowcphqigkuarxsvjdyelzft
> �/whfkgxbsltamrjciouvdnpyezq
> �/tdawxuibcrqjomzkflpsygvehn
> �/wgazbmvhkqctdljxprysueifno
> �/rdnvbxlmwsyuacftezjgophiqk
> �/sxchkdlwtgnijueozypfmvaqbr
> �/owvbjkxecztgrfasylpqhumind
> �/msgtjzkuhnabcvoidfwyxelpqr
> �/bhwiaqoxdvytmrckleznfpgjsu
> �/ibctojevhpgzuqxyklrmadnfws
> �/tovldmpqzehufabrwxijsgyckn
> �/wcidlfsuxnotqyapghremzvjkb
> �/opejafvgyxqtshliunbmdrkwcz
> �/azbfohnrvwitsjckupyqdlgmxe
> �/umokniracfpvstwqxghjdbylze
> �/pmnwhujqkialrdxsogbvyefctz
> �/opiuajxkcreytlgmzdbhswfqnv
> �/pmudbsqgrctyhzeivlfwjknaxo
> �/sakgrtmyufwhcpnoivqdzlexjb
> �/epjtlxnoufyrkigqzvbchwsadm
> �/vrbsalocekdyumwtfginpzqhxj
> �/kpatbmzegncdlwrvqhsxyfuoij
> �/edowpquvgzrhfibntlsxjkmcya
> �/yoescuvpzdqfkwntljaghmxbri

From: David Eather on 8 Apr 2010 16:35
On 7/04/2010 7:05 PM, WTShaw wrote:
> On Apr 5, 6:59 am, David Eather<eat...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to stick to pen and pencil all well and good, but post to a
>> group that is interested in it. Please note how few people respond to
>> your posts and you might understand how worthless they are to a
>> mathematically and computer based cryptography group that relies on
>> analysis for its results and opinions.
>>
> Imagine that which is so easy to be proven by pencil and paper but
> most useful. The bulk of what was posted here was produce by
> programmed functions. Imagine somethings that are so complicated by
> misfortune that you can never prove them as accurate. You would have
> so difficulty doing this with binary coding anyway.
>
> No, I did the work on this sort of thing sometime back in the 80's and
> when on to a more refined use of those ideas in the ring area rather
> than just for as a lowly pad.
>
>

Your snipping has yet again caused an "error" - the subject of this post
was your "solution" to a problem that did no exist. If you want to
change subjects all well and good, but do it on a different thread.
From: David Eather on 8 Apr 2010 16:41
On 9/04/2010 6:35 AM, David Eather wrote:
> On 7/04/2010 7:05 PM, WTShaw wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 6:59 am, David Eather<eat...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want to stick to pen and pencil all well and good, but post to a
>>> group that is interested in it. Please note how few people respond to
>>> your posts and you might understand how worthless they are to a
>>> mathematically and computer based cryptography group that relies on
>>> analysis for its results and opinions.
>>>
>> Imagine that which is so easy to be proven by pencil and paper but
>> most useful. The bulk of what was posted here was produce by
>> programmed functions. Imagine somethings that are so complicated by
>> misfortune that you can never prove them as accurate. You would have
>> so difficulty doing this with binary coding anyway.
>>
>> No, I did the work on this sort of thing sometime back in the 80's and
>> when on to a more refined use of those ideas in the ring area rather
>> than just for as a lowly pad.
>>
>>
>
> Your snipping has yet again caused an "error" - the subject of this post
> was your "solution" to a problem that did no exist. If you want to
> change subjects all well and good, but do it on a different thread.

And that still doesn't fix the problem of you posting pen and pencil
methods to a computer based cryptography group
From: David Eather on 14 Apr 2010 13:14
On 14/04/2010 5:26 PM, WTShaw wrote:
> On Apr 8, 3:35 pm, David Eather<eat...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> On 7/04/2010 7:05 PM, WTShaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 6:59 am, David Eather<eat...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you want to stick to pen and pencil all well and good, but post to a
>>>> group that is interested in it. Please note how few people respond to
>>>> your posts and you might understand how worthless they are to a
>>>> mathematically and computer based cryptography group that relies on
>>>> analysis for its results and opinions.
>>
>>> Imagine that which is so easy to be proven by pencil and paper but
>>> most useful. The bulk of what was posted here was produce by
>>> programmed functions. Imagine somethings that are so complicated by
>>> misfortune that you can never prove them as accurate. You would have
>>> so difficulty doing this with binary coding anyway.
>>
>>> No, I did the work on this sort of thing sometime back in the 80's and
>>> when on to a more refined use of those ideas in the ring area rather
>>> than just for as a lowly pad.
>>
>> Your snipping has yet again caused an "error" - the subject of this post
>> was your "solution" to a problem that did no exist. If you want to
>> change subjects all well and good, but do it on a different thread.
>
> Elaboration is a right. Only a lawyer would so attack varied
> information but usually because he does not understand it, fears its
> effect, or is just trying to be awkward.

Is there any reason to bother with you at all? Is there anything that
you think you don't already know?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Collecting true randomness from natural language texts
Next: Call for participants