Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: Stefan Tillich <stefanti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:08:44 +0200
Sorry for feeding, but that is just too hilarious.
AdaCrypt wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, David Eather <eat...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:It's hard to imagine, that anyone could be more unspecific in citing a source. Referring to some "two day prior posting" on a group currently being flooded by some idiot does it make rather hard to find (especially if you didn't come around to install/update your filters). You might want to be a little more specific on that paper?
OK, since you know what the weakness with AES (and similar ciphers) is,
perhaps you will demonstrate how to crack it?
Remember that you made this claim- no one else.
If full AES is too hard maybe you can crack just half the rounds? Or
can you crack 3 rounds?
Show it, and then you will have done something memorable and great or
you could keep posting rubbish.
< Data Structure Surfacing in Ciphertext.
<"With hindsight this was a mistake because no matter how strong
intellectually
<cryptographers were in their design strategy the structure of the
data in number
<theoretic cipher-text just would not allow itself to be hidden and to
this day it
<continues to surface in the most well designed ciphers such as AES
and RSA,
<granted to a much less extent but sufficient to always attract
cryptanalysis just the <same. "
Two days prior to this a reader had posted an article announcing the
reading of a paper at a conference of the IACR the subject matter of
which is 'time periodicity' that has ominously surfaced in a sample of
AES ciphertext that the person ( in IACR) was able to demonstrate.
" another nail in the coffin of AES is among other remarks that wereIt is astounding that you have - concerning those posts of you I did read - so far shown great resistance against any objective discussion of your ideas. Quite the contrary, you have gone on trying to discard the whole bulk of cryptologic research up to this point as inferior to your "vector cryptography". So even if this paper shows these weaknesses in AES the way you want them to be (which seems very doubtful with the cryptological knowledge you have shown so far), it is funny to see you immediately trusting this scientific work, when you go around and ditch all the rest.
made at the time" by the member of sci crypt..
The fact that the reviewers in IACR were satisfied that there was
enough substance in the submission document of the reader person to
allow the document to be published by Springer Varlag in the magazine
"Lecture Notes for Computer Sciencists" is, in my view, tantamount to
giving it enough credence for quoting in Sci crypt (at least) by both
myself and the original readers posting. My own remarks were and still
are, that this is structure per se in a sample of AES.
Reminds me of the conspiracy guys, which discard any evidence coming from governmental sources as faked, except if they think they can spot [a UFO / the grassy knoll shooter / Elvis / ...] on there, in which case the origin from a governmental source is used as undenieable proof of authenticity of whatever they see.
[rest snipped]
Regards,
Stefan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Junk mail in sci.crypt
- From: R . Dale Shipp
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- References:
- Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: David Eather
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Prev by Date: Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Next by Date: Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Previous by thread: Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Next by thread: Junk mail in sci.crypt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|