Re: Breaking LFSR.

WTShaw wrote:
On May 30, 4:33 pm, David Eather <eat...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
earlcolby.pottin...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 29, 4:10 am, WTShaw <lure...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, maybe I am just dumb, but the following is not what I consider
rewritting into understandable English.
The disadvantage of weak bases is that there is a shortage of logical
states and that makes solving what is happening much easier. Amongst
the easily usable bases, less than a hundred or so, certain ones beg
to be used for cryptographic purposes because of great recursion
properties and of the suggested few bases, they can even be graded as
their good qualities are scalable. Beyond some tests, the mountain of
data easily obtained further suggests more favorability as gut
feelings may tend to further support mathematical direction.
????????
Are you say that LFSR are weak designs from day one, or are you saying
that small(shorter) LFSR are easyier to break than longer ones?
The above is as clear as mud. The word "base" can be use to mean many
diffirent things - which is it?
For purposes of substitution, these select bases facilitate
extrapolation as compared with others.
Which base? What base? What does base mean?
Longer keys in higher bases are easily harnessed due to the
compression of logical states into such characters.
??? Meaning? Easyier to use or easyier to crack, you are not very
clear.
The example suggests the problems that you can encounter as there
might be a tremendous requirement of data necessary to establish any
trends, or even identify the size of the set...care to guess?
Guess what? You are not making any sense at all - define you terms -
I never used them in my original posts so i don't know where you got
them from or what you are referencing. I can interpert your
statements in diffirent ways to have completely opposite meanings.
What are they?
It's a sticky problem to deal with difficult of magnitudes much
greater than simple binary logic and best described in other than
rudimentary binary terms.- Hide quoted text -
That reads like pure noise! Do you have anything useful to post?
Everyone else has been very helpful - so far all your posts have been
a waste of time. Please don't expect any more replies to you until
you stop using should vague lanuage.
WTShaw does not understand that the properties of numbers (such as prime
numbers, the number assigned to represent the character "E", etc)
depends only on the number and not on how that number is represented
(primes are still primes, "E" is still the most common letter, etc).
Hence, many of his posts read as gibberish.

I understand that any character can represent any number...easy
enough. There is more to mathematics than primes. The differences in
many bases is that the elements, representing numbers, are not
directly equal to many other characters, representing numbers, in
other bases.

The reference to primes was intended as an example of the properties of numbers that don't change regardless of the number system used. It has nothing to do (specifically) with cryptography. Hence, it is more likely to provoke new thoughts in that area of number representations.

Sci.crypt is (almost) entirely about computer cryptography. In this case, changing representations of numbers is cryptographically pointless, providing only the illusion of secure complexity, but with no real substance.


Consider the widest disparity is between base 2 and base 3 whereas the
comparison must be based on the logs of them, and nothing else
matters. Thus, it is so of non-harmonic bases. So 2, 4,...128.., etc.
are just bits, and 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, etc. are all just trits. Trits
are never bits and bits are never trits. One is not a subset of the
other.

A base does not even need to be a prime number to be interesting. If
26 was not so good, maybe you would just love 66,

Given different trick to perform, bases differ in strange ways. It is
tantalizing and something you probably will never let yourself know,
sound mathematics for the seeker and wonderous for those who
appreciate beauty in the natural order of things. As a research,I
appreciate when the scientific data does not lie but suggests things
previously unseen.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Breaking LFSR.
    ... compression of logical states into such characters. ... statements in diffirent ways to have completely opposite meanings. ... Everyone else has been very helpful - so far all your posts have been ... WTShaw does not understand that the properties of numbers depends only on the number and not on how that number is represented (primes are still primes, "E" is still the most common letter, etc). ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
    ... but mostly I use Google. ... noticed their original postings. ... Today my posts do probably get read by thousands of people ... Do some searches on primes and probability now, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: [newbie] example primes for blum-blum-shub
    ... library of PRNGs for a language. ... BBS is a cryptographically secure PRNG and library users will expect ... Cryptography: ... Section 8.8 talks extensively about what properties the BBS primes ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Breaking LFSR.
    ... the easily usable bases, less than a hundred or so, certain ones beg ... compression of logical states into such characters. ... (primes are still primes, "E" is still the most common letter, etc). ... many bases is that the elements, representing numbers, are not ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Breaking LFSR.
    ... presumption here that you are equating primes to pi status? ... Sci.crypt is entirely about computer cryptography. ... changing representations of numbers is cryptographically ...
    (sci.crypt)