Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt <austein.obyrne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:17:35 -0700
On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, mycrypto <cryptost...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:29 am, David Eather <eat...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
OK, AES bleeds like a stuck pig. Remember David Scott figured out
that if you encrypted a picture with AES the pattern or ciphertext
would give a good representation of major changes in the picture, even
to the crude representation of objects.
His solutions to that are different from mine but the strong statement
is that might be many paths out of the forest,
It's not about really cracking AES, a nonissue meant to misdirect
attention to who has the biggest wanger, but it is about rather not
seeing the forest for the trees.
As far as real content, efficiency of encryption, the AES shoehorn is
either too big or too small which would give a dedicated attacker an
advantage either way in addition to the rigorized block sizes of
AES.
The real world is not convenient as is. Solutions solely dependent on
a hammer treat all problems like nails...not reality friendly at all.
AES can have a place amongst all others, not above or below, and
certainly not as an enforced or standarized shortsighted endall which
it isn't.
Remember me, I said as much at the time and I'm still right simply
because I am. I respect academic efforts but remember that
authoritarian approaches can and do magnify faults of the
authority...the biggest examples are extant even beyond crytography.
If you are "Dyed in the Wool,' I suspect that one of the letters in
that phrase is wrong and you also don't know about moths.
Greetings, Felicitations and Happy Easter,
You speak Old Testament but I get your drift. I agree very strongly "
with not being able to see the forest for the trees" in your parable.
This is herd syntax and it is forbidden it seems to disagree.
Everybody is caught up in the inebriation of herd dogma and it is a
question of slipstream and momentum. Decoded I am saying that there
will never be a number theoretic cipher that will last more than a few
years at best. The choice of numbers as the encryption data is a
basic mistake that is embarrasssing for anyone to admit. In my mind
it is not a question of anybody winning or anybody being made to look
stupid but if there 's a nettle to grasp in the National interest then
do it.
Numbers get into the human pyshe in childhood and are so useful it
becomes automatic to solve problems by using numeric models. It
requires a lot of detachment to see that they are the wrong thing for
cryptography because of the sheer intensity of structure, order that
they possess. A non academic person might well see this before anyone
else. There's nothing in it for me by promoting vector data instead
of scalar numbers and I am convinced it will eventually happen all by
itself - good to hear - adacrypt
.
- References:
- Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: David Eather
- Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- From: mycrypto
- Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Prev by Date: Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Next by Date: Junk mail in sci.crypt
- Previous by thread: Re: Cryptology Arguments - adacrypt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|