The Winds of Change - The Three Faces of Cryptography.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: New Forum: BulletProof, Bitmap Steganography, XOR
Next: The Winds of Change - The Three Snake Oils of Cryptography.
From: adacrypt on 11 Jun 2010 03:22 Seriously minded people would surely be expected to want nothing less than totally unbreakable cryptography as the only standard worth taking on board but that is clearly not the case in this news group. This is not a criticism but the reality is that not everybody seems to want that to happen for reasons that are not clear and since we live in a democracy they are entitled to act the way they want within the law. It is useful therefore to rationalise the status quo and see where we are working with regard to the overall analysis of the industry from a scientific point of view. If anybody wants to pursue practically unbreakable (less than perfectly unbreakable cryptography) as a selfish cultural pursuit say, then so be it but it needs to be made clear to new readers that this something less than the more serious end-point of perfect secrecy of communications that is the only standard to be aimed at for main stream national and important commercial levels. The peripheral secure communications of the present industry i.e. the razzmatazz show case that includes news groups, dedicated associations purporting to represent research, academies offering courses by internal research team members, promoters of conferences worldwide, is indeed an industry that is living off its defects instead of its successes. A euphemism of the emperors new clothes is a quite apt description but the emperor is clearly stark naked and nobody seemingly wants to give up his long-standing hobby of fantasy cryptography by admitting to this. It is surely time to get real about the status quo. All current cryptography may be classed as being XY cryptography i.e. it happens in the XY plane in various ways. Plane Cryptography. 1)All current cryptography belongs as a subclass in this essentially second-rate class. If the cryptography is encapsulation-driven cryptography i.e. the plaintext is transformed and embedded directly within the cipher text but there for the finding by a cryptanalyst, then it is definitely vulnerable to attack by mathematical inversion methods and can never be ascribed the class of theoretically unbreakable. It may be called plane cryptography that uses plane curves (the elliptical curve is merely one of these) to represent code points. In this context a straight line passes for a curve albeit one that has zero curvature this is mathematically acceptable. There is however a plethora of these curves that have no future in serious cryptography but they do provide a large field of interest to curio collectors in cryptography. It is commendable that readers do this for cultural reasons but it must be confusing to more seriously studious readers that this news group is being used as an on-line playstation rather than a credible information source of worthwhile cryptography. It must surely be one of the longest running mistakes in the history of mathematics to have gone down this road first day when cryptography became number-theoretic in the seventies. A pleasant pursuit undoubtedly today of fantasy ciphers that have no future but instead is something that gives readers the opportunity of piping bits of hackneyed mathematics and obsolete crypt jargon to each other in sci crypt posts but not a matter that should to be encouraged as serious cryptography. That is what is happening with this now defunct subclass of planar cryptography. 2)All plane cryptography is not inferior however and it is possible to create bijections of scatter points in the XY plane that are retrievable (i.e. invertible by mapping) by means of using the cipher text to index the arrays of mapping data. Because they are not functions and instead are simply disordered sets of mapped points it is not possible to cryptanalyse this cryptography by mathematical means. The cipher text serves as the means of merely indexing the mapped points and giving them the required structure for interpretation as message text. There is no functional relationship between the plaintext at Alicess end, the ciphertext in transit and the messagetext at Bobs end. The ciphertext is worthless to an adversary who might intercept it because he does not have access to the databases that it relates to. This is being called variously, Mutual Database cryptography and Markup cryptography. It is a much more useful subset of plane cryptography than the previous one (in 1 above). Creating the scatter points is tricky and although there are two ciphers to hand in my portfolio there is not a lot of interest in these on my website because, I assume, the difficulty to reades of some of the modular arithmetic I have used. They are totally secure ciphers however and are very efficient in operation. Vector Cryptography. 3) This is undoubtedly totally secure cryptography it is theoretically unbreakable according to the official definition. Three- dimensional space is an obvious improvement on the static XY plane and is the ideal environment for all cryptography. It is well covered on my website http//:www.adacrypt.com (see A New Approach to Cryptography). Enjoy adacrypt
From: Mr. B on 11 Jun 2010 07:50 adacrypt wrote: > > Seriously minded people would surely be expected to want nothing less > than totally unbreakable cryptography as the only standard worth > taking on board No, in fact, that is not true at all. The problem with perfect secrecy is that the size of the key has to be at least the size of the message, which leads to a system of limited value -- if the key can be exchanged securely, then why can't the message? Historically, there have been attempts to use one time pads (which have perfect secrecy), but those attempts have generally yielded poor results because of problems managing such a large key. > but that is clearly not the case in this news group. That is because there are more interesting problems to work on, which rely on the computational infeasibility of breaking a system. Perfect secrecy is a solved problem with limited real world value, and we would all get bored pretty quickly talking about it. > the more > serious end-point of perfect secrecy of communications that is the > only standard to be aimed at for main stream national and important > commercial levels. That is a complete falsehood, AES is used for TOP SECRET communication in the US government and whenever you use SSL you are using a block cipher of some sort. Cell phones use stream ciphers based on PRNGs. The only people peddling perfect secrecy for commercial use are snake oil salesmen...oh, it looks like you might be one of them: > Vector Cryptography. > 3) This is undoubtedly totally secure cryptography – it is > theoretically unbreakable according to the official definition. Three- > dimensional space is an obvious improvement on the static XY plane and > is the ideal environment for all cryptography. It is well covered on > my website http//:www.adacrypt.com (see “A New Approach to > Cryptography”). -- B
From: Dave -Turner on 12 Jun 2010 13:54 "Plane cryptography" ... why bother with this if you claim, as you just posted, that your "Vector cryptography is undoubtedly totally secure cryptography � it is theoretically unbreakable according to the official definition." Search google for: "plane cryptography" You get all of 5 results. I don't need to elaborate any further, all readers here - even amateur crypto buffs such as myself can spot this as snakeoil. Why you bother, I don't know - can only assume you have some financial reason for it. But it's people/fraudsters like you that cast a shadow on what is otherwise an amazing bunch of highly gifted individuals. I don't think you know or care what damage you're doing, but I'm just glad that everybody except new amateurs realises you're just a snakeoil peddler and a fraud. When you realise this, perhaps then we'll see your "winds of change". I've asked before but you've never answered, so I'll reply again: - Why have you never released any mathematical proof of your algorithms? - Why do no reputable cryptologists give any weight or even bother responding to your posts? Please answer. Thankyou
From: adacrypt on 12 Jun 2010 17:08 On Jun 12, 6:54 pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > "Plane cryptography" ... why bother with this if you claim, as you just > posted, that your "Vector cryptography is undoubtedly totally secure > cryptography it is theoretically unbreakable according to the official > definition." > > Search google for: "plane cryptography" > You get all of 5 results. > > I don't need to elaborate any further, all readers here - even amateur > crypto buffs such as myself can spot this as snakeoil. Why you bother, I > don't know - can only assume you have some financial reason for it. But it's > people/fraudsters like you that cast a shadow on what is otherwise an > amazing bunch of highly gifted individuals. > > I don't think you know or care what damage you're doing, but I'm just glad > that everybody except new amateurs realises you're just a snakeoil peddler > and a fraud. > > When you realise this, perhaps then we'll see your "winds of change". > > I've asked before but you've never answered, so I'll reply again: > - Why have you never released any mathematical proof of your algorithms? > - Why do no reputable cryptologists give any weight or even bother > responding to your posts? > > Please answer. > Thankyou >I've asked before but you've never answered, so I'll reply again: >- Why have you never released any mathematical proof of your algorithms? >- Why do no reputable cryptologists give any weight or even bother >responding to your posts? The mathematics are so well established that proof is neither possible (since all of the theorems are old hat for centuries) nor necessary - ask any mathematician. >Plane cryptography" ... why bother with this if you claim, as you just >posted, that your "Vector cryptography is undoubtedly totally secure >cryptography it is theoretically unbreakable according to the official >definition." Vector cryptography uses the entire three-dimensional space and is patently unbreakable to anyone who has the mathematics to understand it. Also, at the same time, Plane cryptography means working in the XY plane which is what all current known ciphers are doing. These well known ciphers are all what I call 'encapsulation' ciphers in which the plaintext is transformed by some function and secured by a key(s). These ciphers are all mathematically invertible and therefore can be broken by some form of mathematics (there to be found by cryptanalysts) and they cannot be awarded unbreakable strength for that reason. The XY plane is a subset of 3D space and has a divided use unlike total space that is universally secure for all cryptography. Plane cryptography is a coined word here but perfectly valid - it uses scalar data in the ciphers to hand but could use coordinate methods also if needs be. At the same time of accomodating practically unbreakable ciphers (all of the popularly known ciphers) there are new ciphers that use mutual database technology that also work in the XY plane that are demonstrably unbreakable. These use modular arithmetic to create disordered scatter points to represent the plaintext - these may also be called plane cryptography. If your mathematics were up to it you would not need to ask these questions because they would be self evident to you but clearly that is not the case - the fault is yours - there is no way that anybody can lie in mathematics - when I post something that is expected to be controversial I make sure the maths are correct because of all the well informed mathematicians in sci crypt who seldom post anything but read everything they see and they are my real critics - I am happy to talk to them - I think you should also talk to themand you would soon find out what is wrong with your understanding. You cannot go fooling yourself that all is hunky dory with present crypto when it isn't - it has got to change sometime in the future - it just can't go on as it is - computer power wiil find it out. It takes a long time for new cryptography to be accepted - as much as half of a century - I'm not seeking anything - the politics of a dishonest establishment won't tolerate any threat to their little world so you can expect a lot of sniping before anybody goes public and supports work that they don't like . No. I am not a fraud or a bluffer - you don't seem to know enough to be able to tell the difference between mathematics that requires proof and things that are not needed to be proved. I hope this answers your unjust accusations - adacrypt
From: Bruce Stephens on 12 Jun 2010 17:54
adacrypt <austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> writes: [...] > Vector cryptography uses the entire three-dimensional space No it doesn't. [...] |