From: adacrypt on

The case has been made earlier for using mutually identical database
technology and ciphertext that acts as a mark-up language that
uniquely indexes the arrays of these databases so as to give the
message-text the required structure that converts it into the
meaningful message that Alice wants Bob to know.

The notion of mutual database technology is very easy to understand
but it would be a mistake to think that this cryptography is easy to
design. Instead it is very, very intellectually challenging and no
less difficult than traditional ciphers to create. The ciphertext
acts as a mark-up language that is useless on its own (to an
adversary) but is hugely secure when applied in conjunction with the
uniquely scrambled-and-sliced databases to which it relates. Only
Alice and Bob are privy to these databases.

The truth of modern ciphers is that it is a mistake to encapsulate the
plaintext directly within the ciphertext in any shape or form because
the ciphertext will always retain enough residual structure of the
original raw plaintext to attract the attention of some very clever
cryptanalysts who have the same mathematics available to them as the
cryptographers.

In principle, all conventional modern ciphers are a complete and
utter mistake that may be likened by analogy to sending cash through
the post when a cheque is better.

If the prognosis for long term future is ever to be mutual database
cryptography in mainstream cryptography, then it would very
appropriate to call the markup style ciphertext that characterises it,
a “scripting ciphertext language”, that is created by a “scripting
cipher”.

Future crypto design theory will be in creating markup ciphertext
using “scripting ciphers” rather like Javascript uses html. Each
ciphertext string is then its own unique scripting language.

There is no end to the research possibilities for the suitably
equipped research cryptographer to make new contributions to this
fascinating science in all branches of mathematics. - adacrypt