Prev: A C-code for permutation polynomials mod 2^n
Next: On selection of polynomials for the Multiple Polynomial Quadratic Sieve
From: adacrypt on 23 Mar 2010 07:38
In order to become viable in mainstream cryptography and indeed become
very, very useful all round, the historic one-time pad must become
number–theoretic instead of being merely lexical as at the present
time. It can then become an extremely efficient, theoretically
unbreakable cipher. One of the best on the table, no less.

ASCII makes that possible.

The historic OTP is an adaptation of the Vigenere Cipher of the year
1586 or thereabouts.

A first step in this direction is to look at p.15 of “Applied
Cryptography” by Bruce Schneier – he states an equation of the OTP
there and this can be taken as a starting point in your understanding
of what comes later.

The next step is a new adaptation of the Vigenere cipher in which the
square is populated by the writable subset of ASCII i.e. the
characters numbered 95 to 126 inclusive.

Combining both of these changes i.e. expressing the equation of the
Vigenere square by means of its mathematical equation and then
populating the square with the writable alphanumeric subset of
elements of ASCII instead of the 26 alphabetic characters of the
English language opens the way for a lot of mathematical research that
the reader may well want to subscribe to with your own invention. Any
branch of mathematics could be useful in this respect.

I have written two independent adaptations of the Vigenere square that
are inevitably look-alikes of the historic OTP (but are not OTP’s per
se, mark you carefully). These are ASCII_Pad on http://www.adacrypt.com
and “A Scalable_ Key Cipher” on http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk .

I believe this is the beginning and not the end of this new innovative
cryptography and indeed there are lots more that the enterprising
reader may look for. Go for it - is what I say!

It is time to stop playing with the hackneyed old box, the OTP is much
loved but has served its purpose, although that has escaped
understanding by a lot of people – whether you understand the historic
OTP or not it is time to draw a line under it now and move on -
continuing to quote it is 'barking up the wrong tree'.

What I am saying here is that the Vigenere Cipher of 1586 is back in
serious contention and suitably equipped readers should try writing
some new computer-driven ciphers.

Rabid, blind loyalty in nostalgic supporting of the defunct OTP should
stop now – it has become a useless cult, the OTP will never be
forgotten but it is time to move on now to better things. Don’t fret,
the OTP will always have a place in the archives but it is not worth
anything more – it is futile arguing about it.

Again. These ciphers are ASCII_modulated Vigenere Ciphers – they are
modern adaptations of that once very powerful cipher. They are not
OTP’s although they conform to the same key-length and one-time usage
criteria of any stream cipher that must be satisfied by all ciphers
that claim to be theoretically unbreakable (p.21 –Definitions.
“Handbook of Applied Cryptography”) according to the industry
standards.

It’s time to get it right!

After the revolution !!
- adacrypt
From: rossum on 23 Mar 2010 08:31
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 04:38:50 -0700 (PDT), adacrypt
<austin.obyrne(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>ASCII makes that possible.
Why do you have this obsession with ASCII? The world of computing has
moved on from ASCII to Unicode.

If you insist on a byte-based system then use UTF-8, which overlaps
with ASCII for the first half of its range.

rossum

From: Earl_Colby_Pottinger on 23 Mar 2010 10:38
On Mar 23, 7:31 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 04:38:50 -0700 (PDT), adacrypt
>
> <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >ASCII makes that possible.
>
> Why do you have this obsession with ASCII?  The world of computing has
> moved on from ASCII to Unicode.
>
> If you insist on a byte-based system then use UTF-8, which overlaps
> with ASCII for the first half of its range.

Because he is a kook turn con-artist?

He has nothing that can beat what is available in either freeware or
commercial venues, so he pushes a false claim that every other system
out there is ASCII based and his is better because his is not.

He hopes to find rubes who don't know the difference. At-least I
hope he is a con-artist, if he is just a kook that thinks other
encryption systems can't handle non-ASCII or are designed around ASCII
encoding only, then considering anyone can look at the public code and
see that is not true. Then he has to be a flaming grade A kook.

The problem with that belief is his constant (INCORRECT) references to
OTPs when talking about his programs. This is usually the sign of a
con-artist. Add in his constant ASCII claims and it all reeks of con-
artist to me. The final nail is his constant assumptions that he
always leave out of discussions.
From: J.D. on 23 Mar 2010 11:43
@Earl_Colby_Pottinger
> Because he is a kook turn con-artist?
>
> He has nothing that can beat what is available in either freeware or
> commercial venues, so he pushes a false claim that every other system
> out there is ASCII based and his is better because his is not.
>
> He hopes to find rubes who don't know the difference.   At-least I
> hope he is a con-artist, if he is just a kook that thinks other
> encryption systems can't handle non-ASCII or are designed around ASCII
> encoding only, then considering anyone can look at the public code and
> see that is not true.  Then he has to be a flaming grade A kook.
>
> The problem with that belief is his constant (INCORRECT) references to
> OTPs when talking about his programs.  This is usually the sign of a
> con-artist.  Add in his constant ASCII claims and it all reeks of con-
> artist to me.  The final nail is his constant assumptions that he
> always leave out of discussions.

Adacrypt: clueless gobshite or incompetent swindler? Truly a question
for the ages...
From: Earl_Colby_Pottinger on 23 Mar 2010 12:44
On Mar 23, 10:43 am, "J.D." <degolyer...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Adacrypt: clueless gobshite or incompetent swindler?  Truly a question
> for the ages...

You have cut to the meat. I can't think of a third option.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: A C-code for permutation polynomials mod 2^n
Next: On selection of polynomials for the Multiple Polynomial Quadratic Sieve