Erich Schnoor
2004-11-22 15:59:22 UTC
Bruce Schneier stated:
"http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_doghouse_va_1.html"
systems. Every few months another company believes that they have finally
figured out how to make a commercial one-time pad system. They announce
it, are uniformly laughed at, and then disappear. It's cryptography's
perpetual motion machine.
But, no offence intended, I aggree with his opinion but I don't laugh about
those people who did their best efforts to find a solution in this complex
matter. It seems to be the problem of the subject that there is obviously no
solution possible, even not by "brute force". But times go on.
Notwithstanding I deal with the problem since more than fife years.
Against the "perpetual motion machine" I want to put up for discussion
a "single motion machine". It may work as follows:
1. A byte generator ("CypherMatrix", name by the author) creates from a
quantity of 256 different digital characters:
a) an unlimited permutated series of bytes (8-bit each) stored in a
key file and
b) sufficient number of cipher arrays of 128 characters each
(index value 7-bit sequence).
2. Block keys of 63 bytes from the key file are XOR-concatenated with
plaintext blocks of 63 bytes in serial manner. Keys and plaintext
sequences have always the same length. This may be denominated as
partial or dynamic "one-time-pad".
(regarding to Bruce: I already hear him laughing)
3. Results of the XOR-concatenation (63 x 8-bit sequences) are devided
into 72 x 7-bit sequences ("bit conversion").
4. Each 7-bit sequence constitutes an index value (0 to 127) to address
(pointer) a single character in the cipher array. The found characters
form the cipher text to be sent to the addressee.
The additional steps in 3) and 4) are necessary because there is no real
protection with the simple XOR-concatenation [Bruce Schneier], even not in
a dynamic "one-time-pad". A cryptographic mechanism based on the above steps
- for example: "CypherMatrix" method - will be resistant against all
conventional attacks, even against brute force. In order to test this you
may read the articles at:
http://www.telecypher.net/CORECYPH.HTM
http://www.telecypher.net/CYPHERLN.HTM
Internet greetings,
Erich Schnoor
[Moderator's note: The problem with OTPs is not
that they are not secure, rather that they are
impractical. Your system sounds to me to be just
as impractical ("unlimited permutated series").
Anyway, I just wanted to put the audience and
potential responders on notice that we're not
going to let s.c.r. go too far down that rat hole.
-- moderator (ggr)]
"http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_doghouse_va_1.html"
Quotation "Statement: Vadium Technology"
I am continually amazed at the never-ending stream of one-time padsystems. Every few months another company believes that they have finally
figured out how to make a commercial one-time pad system. They announce
it, are uniformly laughed at, and then disappear. It's cryptography's
perpetual motion machine.
those people who did their best efforts to find a solution in this complex
matter. It seems to be the problem of the subject that there is obviously no
solution possible, even not by "brute force". But times go on.
Notwithstanding I deal with the problem since more than fife years.
Against the "perpetual motion machine" I want to put up for discussion
a "single motion machine". It may work as follows:
1. A byte generator ("CypherMatrix", name by the author) creates from a
quantity of 256 different digital characters:
a) an unlimited permutated series of bytes (8-bit each) stored in a
key file and
b) sufficient number of cipher arrays of 128 characters each
(index value 7-bit sequence).
2. Block keys of 63 bytes from the key file are XOR-concatenated with
plaintext blocks of 63 bytes in serial manner. Keys and plaintext
sequences have always the same length. This may be denominated as
partial or dynamic "one-time-pad".
(regarding to Bruce: I already hear him laughing)
3. Results of the XOR-concatenation (63 x 8-bit sequences) are devided
into 72 x 7-bit sequences ("bit conversion").
4. Each 7-bit sequence constitutes an index value (0 to 127) to address
(pointer) a single character in the cipher array. The found characters
form the cipher text to be sent to the addressee.
The additional steps in 3) and 4) are necessary because there is no real
protection with the simple XOR-concatenation [Bruce Schneier], even not in
a dynamic "one-time-pad". A cryptographic mechanism based on the above steps
- for example: "CypherMatrix" method - will be resistant against all
conventional attacks, even against brute force. In order to test this you
may read the articles at:
http://www.telecypher.net/CORECYPH.HTM
http://www.telecypher.net/CYPHERLN.HTM
Internet greetings,
Erich Schnoor
[Moderator's note: The problem with OTPs is not
that they are not secure, rather that they are
impractical. Your system sounds to me to be just
as impractical ("unlimited permutated series").
Anyway, I just wanted to put the audience and
potential responders on notice that we're not
going to let s.c.r. go too far down that rat hole.
-- moderator (ggr)]