Dynamic "One-time-pad"

From: Erich Schnoor (eschnoor_at_multi-matrix.de)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: 29 Nov 2004 03:52:14 -0800

Hallo, dear internet partners,

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 works as follows:

  1. From a quantity of 256 different digital characters a byte generator
     ("CypherMatrix", name by the author) creates in plaintext intervals
     of 63 bytes:

     a) permutated series of bytes (8-bit each) serial stored in a
        key file and
     b) same number of cipher alphabets (array of 128 characters each
        with index values of 7-bit sequences: 0 - 127).

  2. Plaintext blocks of 63 bytes XOR-concatenated with block keys of
     63 bytes derivated from the key file. 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

With internet greetings,
Erich Schnoor