Re: ASCII Requires a Temporary Substitution During Encryption.

On Feb 20, 12:48 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
+use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
austin.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

[...]

I am full au fait with Unicode and am
looking forward to it becoming more discussed in sci crypt

It's irrelevant, except possibly to toy ciphers (or physical ones,
decoder rings and the like), and then there's good reason to use a
much more limited set of characters (like ASCII, or 26 letters +
space, or something).

For the real purpose of much communication, it must maintain the
capacity to cater to language; artificially running from that idea to
the point of absurdity is not flattering.

Ordinarily modern ciphers work on binary.  Nothing else.  If you want
to send a unicode message you encode a suitable binary encoding of it
(UTF-8, say, or (more likely) UTF-8 compressed).

I think that the word "ordinary" is key to your concepts. New is not
ordinary but is a special case to be considered whether it be good,
great, or extremely bad. The same goes for binary oriented stuff.
Far from toy ciphers, neoclassics can be complex, non-linear, and/or
beyond easy if at all attacks. Of course, the same thing applies to
ALL ciphers, that there is a considerable range of goodness here.
Your so called modern cipher ideas can also be used in toy ciphers too
as educational devices, means to an end.

Encryption can have many uses and to refuse that such is so is rather
demonic, artificially authoritarian, and self-defecating. To be a real
cryptographer requires knowledge of the whole field, at least a
respect of the range of it and understand strengths and flaws where
ever they are found and be open to growth where ever it is discovered.
.

Quantcast