Re: Checking a foolproof algorithm.

From: Simon G Best (s.g.best_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 07/27/03 

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:28:01 +0000 (UTC)

A good place for looking for newsgroup FAQs is http://www.faqs.org.
There are also 'answers' newsgroups where many FAQs are posted
regularly. FAQs are good. They contain lots of answers to common
questions - including questions one doesn't know one needs to ask ;-)

spymix wrote:
>
> But what if each time a message is sent (encrypted only) one of the 2
> keys (which is the most important key), values are different from all
> previous messages and the other key value varying between 1-17 integer
> value!

As you haven't said what your encryption scheme is, that certainly
doesn't mean that your encryption scheme is secure. (It doesn't mean
that it's insecure, either, but neither does the fact that the earth is
round.)

> The value in the important key is not integer but a rational
> with a limited length of decimals which actually drives the algorithm
> that changes that value into an irrational. Which is then used for
> each decimal in its expandtion to correspond to each plain text letter
> to add as an integer with each plain text letter value creating a new
> letter value. There is also a slight twist here but hard to explain in
> a few words. Also these are all unique irrationals that can not be
> found easily. I can elaborate if need be but it is difficult to
> explain.

This is too vague. It sounds like some sort of stream cipher, possibly
based on some sort of mathematical problem, but still your description
is far too vague and sketchy. You need to give a clear, complete,
precise description of your scheme. It needs to be sufficiently
detailed and unambiguous to allow others to fully implement it.

> Would doing it this way help in the security of any given encrypted
> message

It is impossible to say at present.

> These keys could also be prefixed as letters in the encrypted message
> so as to be disguised within the actual encrypted message.

This sounds very bad. If you give a full, detailed description of your
scheme, others will know how to get the keys back out of the messages,
and your scheme will have no security. (Even publishing it as just
executable code would render your scheme woefully insecure.)

> Where the
> first x amount of letters could be the rational key and then the next
> 2 letters representing the next key integer values between 1-17.

And now you've told the world (through this newsgroup) where the keys are!

> All
> these prefixed letters (26) could have predetermined values for key
> values in the algorithm. Which could also be placed with n letter
> length @ end of decrypted message also looking like part of the
> cipher.

? That doesn't make sense.

> You are right about exposing the keys.
> So it probably would be best to hide the keys within the encrypted
> message like I explained above. Where everything looks like one
> encrypted message.
>
> Dan

Except that you've told the world that you're doing that. You've told
the world where the keys are. The world now knows that the encrypted
message isn't just the message but also contains the keys. And you've
told the world that those keys are at the start of the message.

Please take heed of the various bits of advice you've been given by
respondents to your original message.

Simon

Relevant Pages
Quantcast