Re: Please test this encryption

From: LinuxGuy (ilikelinux2001_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/20/03 

Date: 20 Aug 2003 04:30:13 -0700

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.55L-032.0308192117260.24021@unix48.andrew.cmu.edu>...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, LinuxGuy wrote:
> >
> > Martin Vesterlund <martin.vesterlund@remove.telia.com> wrote...
> > > LinuxGuy wrote:
> > > | A short message CAN be easier for brute force cracking. However for
> > > | statistical/frequency analysis then a longer message is easier.
> > >
> > > And IF we bruteforce the ciphertext, we can get any text that has the
> > > same length!
> >
> > Well smart ass the odds of you brute forcing and producing an
> > intelligable message that is the exact same length are rather long.
>
>
> and then Bruce Stephens wrote:
> > ilikelinux2001@yahoo.com (LinuxGuy) writes:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Umm if there is 10K you can bet that people are looking at them.
> >
> > Doubt it. Anyone want to own up to looking at them?
>
>
> Of course, I shouldn't admit to this so soon, but I did look long
> enough and hard enough to produce the "crack" I posted. I didn't
> look hard enough to bother with creating a RNG from scratch
> that would generate the keytext, nor do I know how ;) But LinuxGuy's
> probability calculation *was* somewhat off...
>
> [Note to the OP: No, really, nobody is trying to "crack" your
> system. Everyone thinks you're a dumbass who doesn't know how
> to write hexadecimal, let alone code, let alone a non-weak
> cryptosystem, let alone a novel and secure cryptosystem. Even
> my "technical" response was completely sarcastic, in that the
> algorithm I outlined, given the keytext I provided, decrypts
> your "message" as follows: "Nobody will ever crack my leet cypher
> because it is supersecure" [sic].]
>
> -Arthur

Another crypto genius who is sure he can crack my code, but won't do it because...

Your meassage is not even close by the way.

Quantcast