Re: The Most Profound Distillation of the Feedack from Modern Cyptography.



On Sep 26, 9:19 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:12 am, John Nagle <na...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 9/22/2011 10:05 AM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

On 11-09-22 11:36 AM, Prof Craver wrote:

All he's saying is that mathematically impossible encryption will
remain mathematically impossible as long as digital computers are
digital.

Ah. So he is pointing out that computers must represent numbers using
finite representations. Therefore all numbers that computers use are
countable.

Technically that's a true statement.

Indeed, but he seems to see this as a problem (and presumably thinks
that he has a solution to the "problem").

    Usually I run into those people criticizing proof of correctness on
the grounds of undecidability.  I didn't know they were into
cryptography, too.

    Historically, there were some analog encryption schemes for
voice and video.  They tended to suffer from "residual intelligibility";
some sense of the content still got through.
Turing once proposed using a device which did an analog modular
add to add a random noise stream to audio.  The receiving end could then
reverse the operation and decrypt.  Keeping the noise streams (one time
keys on phonograph records) in sync was too hard to do with 1940s
technology, so that idea didn't work out.  This is not SIGSALY;
that was a competing digital system, with 15 racks of tube gear.
Turing knew about that and was trying to design something simpler.

     There's no cryptographic advantage in doing this in analog.
Turing was just trying to get the system tube count down.

                                        John Nagle

Good to hear but this is speculating way beyond the point that we are
at present.

My theory is that even the current cryptanalysis methods of
differential analysis are too close for comfort and that in broad
principle we should drop the idea of using ‘raw’ numbers altogether
because they will always carry sufficient give-away evidence of their
transparent origins that will keep on surfacing in the ciphertext, to
whit the numbers that comprise ciphertext that after all are merely
another set of points further along the same number-line.

There is no need for me to qualify exactly how that will be done
(frankly I don’t know) but the threat alone is enough to veto all use
of raw numbers in the future as the only solution to something that is
very likely when computer power inevitably increases sufficiently.   I
am presenting the means of doing this.  Why fight this when it is
something good?

The ciphers on the table from me use the ploy of analogue
representation as a kind of temporary surrogate representation of the
real integers that lasts only and specifically for the duration of the
secret message while it is in transit. These analogues (displacement
vectors) of the numbers come with new methodology that totally defeats
cryptanalysis of the ciphertext for all time.  This is essential to
protect the secrecy of ciphertext in the future especially with ever-
increasing computer power a reality.

I can’t understand the intransigence of people who want to fight this
with all the bigotry that they can muster. It’s as plain as the nose
on their faces that change is inevitable from some source in the
future so why not grab this change from me when it comes with
mathematical proof that is axiomatically evident.  There is nothing in
it for me either way if they do or do not.

I am offering methodology that is immune to computer power for all
time.

There are none so blind …

 Regards and thanks - adacrypt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Also.

I am getting my head around the implications of your post at the
minute and realise now that what you are saying is that the
representation of numbers internally inside computers being changed in
form is your point being made? Call this micro.

No. nay , never.

I am saying that it is the external macro representation of numbers
within encryption algorithms that needs changing - i.e. at present
numbers as operands of ciphers are sitting ducks as points on the
traditional number-line and are extremely vulnerable because of this -
numerical analysis of the ciphertext both current and future is able
to capitalise easily on this transparency and needs to be stopped.

My solution is the analogue representation of the same numbers but on
directed number-lines instead by position vectors that are in fact
perfect analogues of the numbers. They are used and recalled with
perfect secrecy by the entities of a secure communications loop.

This is old hat mathematics but new cryptography.

Cheers - adacrypt

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: scwewy answers that dont belong
    ... I'm fully cognizant that computers don't make mistakes, ... not this thread entitled "Excel bug?". ... depending on the precision of the decimal representation, ... it is interesting that a decimal representation ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... The reason why we represent information processing systems as IPSs (or ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)