Discussion:
Dynamic "One-time-pad"
(too old to reply)
Erich Schnoor
2004-11-22 15:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bruce Schneier stated:
"http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_doghouse_va_1.html"
Quotation "Statement: Vadium Technology"
I am continually amazed at the never-ending stream of one-time pad
systems. Every few months another company believes that they have finally
figured out how to make a commercial one-time pad system. They announce
it, are uniformly laughed at, and then disappear. It's cryptography's
perpetual motion machine.
But, no offence intended, I aggree with his opinion but I don't laugh about
those people who did their best efforts to find a solution in this complex
matter. It seems to be the problem of the subject that there is obviously no
solution possible, even not by "brute force". But times go on.
Notwithstanding I deal with the problem since more than fife years.

Against the "perpetual motion machine" I want to put up for discussion
a "single motion machine". It may work as follows:

1. A byte generator ("CypherMatrix", name by the author) creates from a
quantity of 256 different digital characters:

a) an unlimited permutated series of bytes (8-bit each) stored in a
key file and
b) sufficient number of cipher arrays of 128 characters each
(index value 7-bit sequence).

2. Block keys of 63 bytes from the key file are XOR-concatenated with
plaintext blocks of 63 bytes in serial manner. Keys and plaintext
sequences have always the same length. This may be denominated as
partial or dynamic "one-time-pad".
(regarding to Bruce: I already hear him laughing)

3. Results of the XOR-concatenation (63 x 8-bit sequences) are devided
into 72 x 7-bit sequences ("bit conversion").

4. Each 7-bit sequence constitutes an index value (0 to 127) to address
(pointer) a single character in the cipher array. The found characters
form the cipher text to be sent to the addressee.

The additional steps in 3) and 4) are necessary because there is no real
protection with the simple XOR-concatenation [Bruce Schneier], even not in
a dynamic "one-time-pad". A cryptographic mechanism based on the above steps
- for example: "CypherMatrix" method - will be resistant against all
conventional attacks, even against brute force. In order to test this you
may read the articles at:

http://www.telecypher.net/CORECYPH.HTM
http://www.telecypher.net/CYPHERLN.HTM

Internet greetings,
Erich Schnoor

[Moderator's note: The problem with OTPs is not
that they are not secure, rather that they are
impractical. Your system sounds to me to be just
as impractical ("unlimited permutated series").
Anyway, I just wanted to put the audience and
potential responders on notice that we're not
going to let s.c.r. go too far down that rat hole.
-- moderator (ggr)]
g***@qualcomm.com
2004-12-08 05:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Erich Schnoor wrote:
[snip]
Post by Erich Schnoor
Against the "perpetual motion machine" I want to put up for
discussion
[snip]
Post by Erich Schnoor
[Moderator's note: The problem with OTPs is not
that they are not secure, rather that they are
impractical. Your system sounds to me to be just
as impractical ("unlimited permutated series").
Anyway, I just wanted to put the audience and
potential responders on notice that we're not
going to let s.c.r. go too far down that rat hole.
-- moderator (ggr)]
I'm the moderator who wrote that note. After email conversation with
Erich, it became clear to me that I was not clear enough about what I
wrote. It was not my intention to stifle any meaningful follow-up to
Erich's posts. I was simply hoping to cut off any of the usual
sci-crypt followups, along the lines of whether or not one-time-pad
systems are practical, or ad-hominem attacks, or whatever. Please be
assured that any postings that have meaningful comments on Erich's
system or ideas would certainly be approved, by me or one of the other
moderators.

I apologise to Erich, both for not making this clear enough, and for
possibly cutting off meaningful discussion.

Greg.
Erich Schnoor
2004-12-14 05:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
the opportunity is
destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they
need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system
GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain
autonomy they must get off that leash.

HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST



77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from
psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied
with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people
differ so greatly in their response to modern society.

78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the
drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have
relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least
relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are
docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the
Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at "plantation darkies" of the Old
South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their
servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)

79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which
they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who
have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole
lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that
game.

80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing
techniques. Some people are so susceptible that, even if they make a
great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for
the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their
eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financiall

Loading...