The Final Anlysis.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Regarding pseudo-random functions for Pollard's Rho factoringmethod
Next: How to handle initialization vectors ?
From: adacrypt on 19 Jun 2010 04:15 Let the encryption of a character be represented by a point in the XY plane. Let the cipher text be some transformation of the character to this point in the XY plane. A basic tenet now is that the cipher text can only be theoretically unbreakable if it is sporadically mapped and the resultant point is one of some set of scatter points in the plane. If it is functionally mapped to points in the XY plane then these points belong on regular curves in the XY plane and they can be found by inverting the function the cryptography is then patently weak no matter what function is ever used. Sporadically mapped points i.e. scatter points, do not ever belong on curves. The name of the game therefore is to stay off regular curves in cryptography yet everybody is hell bent on getting onto a curve by some exotic means that will give credibility to an impossible untruth. The only antidote to sporadic mapping i.e. by an acceptable functional method, is to use a one-way function that does the mapping. One-way functions are not invertible. A one-way function does not exist in the XY plane however but all crypto research seeks to emulate a one- way function. The nearest you can get to such a thing in mathematics is a function that is computationally infeasible but not impossible using sufficient computer power, to invert. It is thought by the pundits that one-way functions do not exist at all anywhere in mathematics the consensus has to be therefore that any character that is mapped to a curve, which includes a straight line, in the XY plane is retrievable by some mathematical means. Continuing to look for such functions in obscure mathematics is a waste of effort the results may be quaint but they do not yield theoretically unbreakable cryptography. The only way to avoid attacks on cipher text by mathematical inversion is by sporadic mapping (only) in the encryption transformation, i.e. if you are using the XY plane as the encryption environment. All mapping of characters in three-dimensional space is safe however and is done in a one-way functional way without fear of inverting. Conclusion: All function-driven cryptography in the XY plane is weak and cannot ever produce theoretically unbreakable cryptography no matter how complicated the users' mathematics tries to make it. Sporadically mapped characters i.e. to scatter points in the XY plane is powerfully strong and can yield theoretically unbreakable cryptography. It is outside the domain of functionally driven mathematics however. All mapping of characters in three-dimensional space (vector cryptography) is the ultimate and is just simply impossible to break by any means and is always theoretically unbreakable cryptography. Why settle for less ? http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk presents cryptography that uses non-functional i.e. sporadic mapping as the modus operandi - adacrypt
From: Dave -Turner on 19 Jun 2010 13:57 Let X = Y + A - 6 + 3, divided by 2, and lets hope people just pay homeage to the fact it "looks" possible rather than looking at the reality. Can you PLEASE TELL US what it is you're trying to achieve by your posts??? Because if it isn't snakeoil I don't know what it is :/ And if it ISN'T snakeoil, then I apologise for my above comment, but if it WASN'T snakeoil then you'd be able to provide mathematical evidence that it isn't, so I shouldn't feel guilty. So I hope you can please provide said evidence to prove me wrong.
From: adacrypt on 19 Jun 2010 17:41 On Jun 19, 6:57 pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > Let X = Y + A - 6 + 3, divided by 2, and lets hope people just pay homeage > to the fact it "looks" possible rather than looking at the reality. > > Can you PLEASE TELL US what it is you're trying to achieve by your posts??? > Because if it isn't snakeoil I don't know what it is :/ > > And if it ISN'T snakeoil, then I apologise for my above comment, but if it > WASN'T snakeoil then you'd be able to provide mathematical evidence that it > isn't, so I shouldn't feel guilty. So I hope you can please provide said > evidence to prove me wrong. The essential point being made here in this post (as well as several others recently) is that mathemtically driven cryptography using any of the wellknown scalar methodology in the XY plane can never produce theoretically unbreakable ciphers - at best it can only produce practically unbreakable ciphers - that goes for all current cryptography that I am calling encapsulation cryptography - i.e. a plaintext is transformed and embedded directly into the ciphertext (there for the finding by cryptanalysts) because the mathematics that created is invertible by other mathematics. At the same time there is also other cryptography available int the XY plane that is immune to being inverted by mathematics but it must be done by sporadic (studiously disordered but retrievable) methodology - this cryptography must use the concept of mutual database technology in which the ciphertext indexes the arrays of the databases only and has no value on its own if intercepted - this cryptography can be demonstarted as being theoretically unbreakable - it is axiomatically so i.e. it cannot be proven because it is already so obvious it does not require proof - I am exhorting readers to go for this and stop wasting time on something that has no future unless of course they want to do it for cultural amusement - that of course is quite valid also and I suspect is the reason for many readers going down that road but I think that seriously minded crypto people should be looking for the best there is ????. The vector cryptography that I am expounding is all theoretically unbreakable also in addition to the scalar crypto I spoke of in the XY plane. Collecting results: some of XY plane cryptography is theoretically unbreakable - most isn't - that includes all current ciphers. All of three-dimensional spatial (vector based) cryptography is theoretically unbreakable. I honestly cannot see why anybody wants to go pursuing something that is only second class cryptography - which is much more difficult also in passing. I am not sure what snakeoil is - I understand the frustration of being bombarded with stuff that is difficult to take on board but it has got to happen in the years ahead - it has to be accepted that computer power will reduce brute forcing times to a point where it becomes unviable to continue with current cryptography - the time to act is now. My cryptography is under the spotlight with many study groups at the present time - they keep coming regularly at about 2500 per month (for over four years) which albeit modest compare with Webshots is sufficient to indicate a sustained interest - I am not trying to upstage anybody - I fail to understand why anyone intelligent enough to take in difficult current cryptography cannot see that it is weak in the face of growing computer power and must be repalced in time - in any case who wants to settle for second best when there is something bettter on the table ? - adacrypt
From: Gordon Burditt on 19 Jun 2010 20:16 >> Let X = Y + A - 6 + 3, divided by 2, and lets hope people just pay homeage >> to the fact it "looks" possible rather than looking at the reality. >> >> Can you PLEASE TELL US what it is you're trying to achieve by your posts??? >> Because if it isn't snakeoil I don't know what it is :/ It's not good enough to be snakeoil. Or snakepoop. It's not even good enough to have BP dump it into the ocean to soak up the oil. >> And if it ISN'T snakeoil, then I apologise for my above comment, but if it >> WASN'T snakeoil then you'd be able to provide mathematical evidence that it >> isn't, so I shouldn't feel guilty. So I hope you can please provide said >> evidence to prove me wrong. > >The essential point being made here in this post (as well as several >others recently) is that mathemtically driven cryptography using any You mean as opposed to hallucinogen-driven cryptography? >of the wellknown scalar methodology in the XY plane can never produce >theoretically unbreakable ciphers - at best it can only produce >practically unbreakable ciphers - that goes for all current >cryptography that I am calling encapsulation cryptography - i.e. a >plaintext is transformed and embedded directly into the ciphertext >(there for the finding by cryptanalysts) because the mathematics that >created is invertible by other mathematics. A scalar is a one-dimensional quantity. So how did it wind up in the XY plane, when previously adacrypt called it one-dimensional? Anything you can do with N-dimensional vectors, I can do with N times as many scalars, and the results will be the same. How do you know that 3-dimensions is enough? Why not 17 dimensions? Or pi cubed dimensions? >At the same time there is also other cryptography available int the XY >plane that is immune to being inverted by mathematics but it must be >done by sporadic (studiously disordered but retrievable) methodology - >this cryptography must use the concept of mutual database technology "mutual database technology" messes up as soon as you get messages missing, duplicated, out of order, or the enemy sends a fake message which you try to decrypt. >in which the ciphertext indexes the arrays of the databases only and >has no value on its own if intercepted - this cryptography can be >demonstarted as being theoretically unbreakable - it is axiomatically >so i.e. it cannot be proven because it is already so obvious it does >not require proof - It is axiomatically true because adacrypt is assuming it is true without proof. Here we have a number of types of proofs demonstrated: Proof by Repetitive Assertion. Proof by Vigorous Assertion. Proof by Assumption and Circular Reasoning: Assume x; therefore x. Proof by Appeal to Proof Being Unnecessary. Proof by Wishful Thinking. Proof by Stamping Feet, Whining, and Wetting Pants. >I am exhorting readers to go for this and stop >wasting time on something that has no future unless of course they >want to do it for cultural amusement - that of course is quite valid >also and I suspect is the reason for many readers going down that road >but I think that seriously minded crypto people should be looking for >the best there is ????. Please demonstrate theoretically unbreakable *PUBLIC KEY* cryptography. Many applications, such as e-commerce over the web, need the characteristics of public-key cryptography (in particluar, *NOT* having to have a large pre-shared key) to function well. Theoretically unbreakable cryptography is EXTREMELY unsuitable for the application of encrypting video to cable boxes. You need as much keying material as you intend to have messages. It uses a few transmitters to many millions of receivers. It uses an essentially one-way channel. It's not error-free, either. It would need enough keying material to cover hundreds of channels 24x7. Cable boxes do not have a secure channel to send keying material; if they did, why not use it for the video instead of the keying material? >The vector cryptography that I am expounding is all theoretically >unbreakable also in addition to the scalar crypto I spoke of in the XY >plane. > >Collecting results: some of XY plane cryptography is theoretically >unbreakable - most isn't - that includes all current ciphers. > >All of three-dimensional spatial (vector based) cryptography is >theoretically unbreakable. Bullshit. You can have non-theoretically-unbreakable crypto in any number of dimensions. If nothing else, include the key in the message. For another, keep re-using the same key a lot. >I honestly cannot see why anybody wants to go pursuing something that >is only second class cryptography - which is much more difficult also >in passing. "Theoretically unbreakable" is not a requirement in many types of crypto applications, and it's not even possible to use it in many of them because of its disadvantages. For much the same reason, "withstands a nuclear explosion" is not a requirement for consumer-grade USB cables, nor is "theoretically unbreakable" a requirement to protect a cable box when you can subscribe for $80 a month. >I am not sure what snakeoil is - I understand the frustration of being >bombarded with stuff that is difficult to take on board but it has got >to happen in the years ahead - it has to be accepted that computer >power will reduce brute forcing times to a point where it becomes >unviable to continue with current cryptography - the time to act is >now. Yes: start setting up secure channels to everyone. You'll need them to use adacrypt's cryptography, big time! >My cryptography is under the spotlight with many study groups at the >present time - they keep coming regularly at about 2500 per month (for >over four years) which albeit modest compare with Webshots is >sufficient to indicate a sustained interest Compare this against the hit rate for a joke-of-the-day site. Some people think adacrypt's cryptography is a joke because he takes it so seriously. >- I am not trying to >upstage anybody - I fail to understand why anyone intelligent enough >to take in difficult current cryptography cannot see that it is weak >in the face of growing computer power and must be repalced in time - >in any case who wants to settle for second best when there is >something bettter on the table ? - adacrypt For many crypto applications, "theoretically unbreakable" is *NOT* an improvement. Especially for those that need public-key cryptography. Or for those sites where one end can't store a lot of pre-shared key, like space probes and smart cards.
From: Mr. B on 19 Jun 2010 23:06
adacrypt wrote: > The essential point being made here in this post (as well as several > others recently) is that mathemtically driven cryptography using any > of the wellknown scalar methodology in the XY plane Uhm, not to be a spoilsport, but could you possibly define the term "scalar methodology in the XY plane?" > can never produce > theoretically unbreakable ciphers - at best it can only produce > practically unbreakable ciphers - that goes for all current > cryptography that I am calling encapsulation cryptography - i.e. a > plaintext is transformed and embedded directly into the ciphertext > (there for the finding by cryptanalysts) because the mathematics that > created is invertible by other mathematics. Please take a look at the one time pad before continuing. > At the same time there is also other cryptography available int the XY > plane that is immune to being inverted by mathematics but it must be > done by sporadic (studiously disordered but retrievable) methodology - Again, define your terms. "Sporadic methodology" is not a term that I have seen anywhere else. > this cryptography must use the concept of mutual database technology Which is going to create a world of hurt for anyone trying to deploy it. > in which the ciphertext indexes the arrays of the databases only and > has no value on its own if intercepted As my adviser puts it, "if your cryptosystem does not involve a random number, it is probably not going to work." Your cryptosystem does not appear to involve a random number, so if your users need to send more than one encrypted message, they will already be in trouble -- and I guess we won't even get into CPA/CCA security here. > - this cryptography can be > demonstarted as being theoretically unbreakable - it is axiomatically > so i.e. it cannot be proven because it is already so obvious it does > not require proof That is not the meaning of "axiomatic." It is not at all uncommon to prove seemingly "obvious" statements from axioms. > - I am exhorting readers to go for this and stop > wasting time on something that has no future I laughed a little when I read this, especially since you are the one who wrote it. > unless of course they > want to do it for cultural amusement - that of course is quite valid > also and I suspect is the reason for many readers going down that road > but I think that seriously minded crypto people should be looking for > the best there is ????. Seriously minded crypto researchers solved the problem of theoretically unbreakable crypto a long time ago, and have moved on to more interesting problems. > The vector cryptography that I am expounding is all theoretically > unbreakable also in addition to the scalar crypto I spoke of in the XY > plane. Define your terms, especially the ones that you just invented on the spot. > Collecting results: some of XY plane cryptography is theoretically > unbreakable - most isn't - that includes all current ciphers. 1. This seems to contradict the other things you said 2. One time pads, which are well known, are theoretically unbreakable 3. Define your terms. > All of three-dimensional spatial (vector based) cryptography is > theoretically unbreakable. Start by defining your terms. Then, you can go ahead and prove that statement. > I honestly cannot see why anybody wants to go pursuing something that > is only second class cryptography - which is much more difficult also > in passing. There is nothing "second class" about modern cryptography. > I am not sure what snakeoil is Snakeoil usually refers to security systems that are pushed as "unbreakable" without shaky or no proof whatsoever. Usually, there are a lot of fancy- sounding but completely undefined terms that are used. > - I understand the frustration of being > bombarded with stuff that is difficult to take on board but it has got > to happen in the years ahead - it has to be accepted that computer > power will reduce brute forcing times to a point where it becomes > unviable to continue with current cryptography - the time to act is > now. Hm, sounds to me like someone is not comprehending the idea of exponential growth. > My cryptography is under the spotlight with many study groups at the > present time People studying your crypto does not say anything about the security of your cipher. All it means is that people took a moment to see whether or not you were peddling something secure. > I fail to understand why anyone intelligent enough > to take in difficult current cryptography cannot see that it is weak > in the face of growing computer power and must be repalced in time Yup, you fail to understand, that about sums up the problem here. Take a moment to review the various theoretical topics related to cryptography, and the answers might dawn on you. -- B |