# Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind

*From*: "giorgio.tani" <giorgio.tani@xxxxxxxx>*Date*: 18 May 2006 04:03:19 -0700

do you think using higher number of ciphers really cost the user moreNo, in this I qiute agree with you (in fact my work Kyu is higly

than the hacker?

focused on cypher composition, the framework leave room up to 16

syncronous cyphers, with some of those being adaptative driven by the

key and or the message... quite a lot!) and it's simple to calculate

it: bruteforcing an unknown composition of n layers of encryption

between a m cyphers wide pool would cost at the attacker m^n

computational cost while to the receiver it will cost only n, so in

that sense this would be reasonable, hoever it's very difficult to

understand and prove anything about that construction.

Instead, with a cleaner construction of a simpler cryptosystem we may

be able to understand and prove desired characteristic that may lead us

to trust that algorithm up to a given keysize, and increasing the

trustable keysize is even a more efficient way to act because it will

increase exponentially the bruteforcing effort but only marginally the

user computetional workload.

And, as I said, it's also important to build a system with a lot of

useful characteristic, not a single overkilling characteristic that as

an armored door for an house with open windows doesn't give a single

more chance to resist to an attack, that would invariabli be led toward

weaker points (cycle lenght? key schedule? weak keys? etc...)

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

**References**:**SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*giorgio.tani

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*giorgio.tani

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*giorgio.tani

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*giorgio.tani

**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind***From:*doctoresam@xxxxxxxxx

- Prev by Date:
**Re: File wiping: why isn't one pass sufficient?** - Next by Date:
**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind** - Previous by thread:
**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind** - Next by thread:
**Re: SPES (my new encryption) one of its kind** - Index(es):