Re: The crazy encryption madmans codebook



<jt64@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1173012045.031483.180180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 4 Mar, 01:55, "Joseph Ashwood" <ashw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<j...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1172925208.343013.187300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip point for point demonstration of cryptographic lack, just the bullet
points:
* In order to be even remotely possibly minimally secure would require an
absolute minimum of 5 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 petabytes of storage,
even that assumes perfect compression of the database
* The system as designed leaks information at an incredible rate as per the
proof supplied earlier
* By the proofs supplied earlier the entire security rests on the minimum
security of either the permutation (which is fixed and so insecure) and the
chaining mode (which was proven to be heavily biased and therefore highly
insecure)

Well Joe i never said that the database only had 5 000 000 entries it
was an example,

Unless you can approach 2^128 entries, the system will be insecure.

And that is why you really fear this approach to cryptography, it is
your buisness and these type of algorithms rends your knowledge of
attacks useless.

Quite the opposite really, once again I refer you back to the proofs
supplied earlier. Your design is a simple subset of all posible
permutations, so proofs that show it is weak if all possible permutations
are achievable show that the design given, and every possible variation of
it, are insecure.

And that is why you try to very fast discard the whole approach as
useless Joe.

I will certainly argue that my reasoning, and the proofs behind it, provide
a very plain reason why I did this. My goal as always is to eliminate all
pointlessly insecure cryptography, of which your design is one of the
gravest offenders I have seen in a long time.

Clark - I agree, it was quite predictable, in particular form the inability
to recognise logic.

As for what (sic) means, it is actually an abbreviation of the "psych-out"
that to the best of my knowledge first appeared in the early to mid 1980s as
slang in Southern California, due to it's closeness with hollywood and the
music industry usage of the word spread. As for meaning it implies a
reversal in meaning of the previous text.
Joe


.