# Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.

*From*: adacrypt <austin.obyrne@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:06:50 -0800 (PST)

On Nov 17, 7:36 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This cryptography is very difficult to understand and impossible to

prove. It is possible however to validate the claims being made by

using a special computer program that I have written to check every

one of the the 95^2 x 14250 (128606250) combinations of plaintext, key

and modulus that are used in the demonstration program going public

soon as free software under the GNU General Public License. That

validation has been done and everything if fine.

The more discerning cryptographer will see the basis of this algorithm

fairly quickly but I’m not saying anything more, to do so would be to

only open another tiresome can of argumentative worms by ill equipped

readers.

This is going to be the last piece of crypto research from me, I am

not going down any more unexplored avenues looking for ciphers. My

dilating key and vector cryptography, both in SMD is a fairly sizable

contribution and is enough for one person.

I want to labour the point here that the success of these two (I

believe they are both here to stay) is in steering well clear of the

beautiful number system that I maintain is totally unsuited to

cryptography and instead going down a seemingly bizarre private path

of customised number lines. Anybody who ever uses raw data from the

universal number line as the encryption data of a cipher is doomed to

hiding that fact from cryptanalysts for ever more (and they will

pursue you relentlessly until they crack your ciphertext) so what has

to be done is to customise a number line specially to suit

cryptography. I have done that by a) in vector cryptography using a

directed number line that has a unique vector equation and b) in this

latest cryptography of “dilating key” a line that has widely varying

periodicity. Both methods are geared to foil cryptanalysis.

It is not because I don’t know any number theory (people have kindly

offered to teach me – but no thanks ) it is just that I am convinced

that this is the only thing that will ever completely foil

cryptanalysis. I also think that combining the latter with human

intervention i.e. by the entities using synchronised mutual databases

and providing mathematically impossible-to-deduce keys by calling them

sequentially from the scrambled arrays of their databases, is the

better way forward.

I have propounded rules for this system of SMD (synchronised mutual

databases) that are insurmountable by cryptanalysis. I have said

recently that SMD makes possible much simpler, almost benign

algorithms but I must confess also that I don’t know of any and maybe

it is naïve for me to think that but my deep-down gut feeling is that

there are more algorithms still out there for the finding by suitably

motivated researchers (not just by mouse-clicking around links to

other peoples theories) .

The special computer program for testing huge domains that I mentioned

above is on offer to anybody who wants to contact me.

- adacrypt

This link may be of interest to some readers - it shows the

application to a language in Unicode as an example

http://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk/downloads/implementations.pdf

- adacrypt

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.***From:*David Eather

**References**:**Dilating Key Encryptions.***From:*adacrypt

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.** - Next by Date:
**Re: Write Your Own Dilating Key Cipher in Your Favourite Language.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.** - Next by thread:
**Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.** - Index(es):