[cryptography] non-decryptable encryption

Natanael natanael.l at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 17:39:20 EDT 2012


Not 10^500. That's assuming all numbers are primes. With larger numbers,
the ratio of prime numbers to ordinary drops. A lot. I don't think it's
more than 1^50 primes there, could be far less.

Also, you are SERIOUSLY underestimating cryptoanalysis. You assume to much
about how well these "tricks" will be able to prevent cracking the crypto.

Also, cryptoanalysis often provide attacks that is faster-than-bruteforce
to get the key or plaintext. Now we are talking millions of times faster.
Or more...
You have not convinced me that an FPGA can't crack this in an hour.

- Sent from my tablet
Den 20 jun 2012 19:50 skrev "Givonne Cirkin" <givonne at 37.com>:

> ok. lets say 500 characters with a random sequence -a prime key- can be
> brute forced decrypted. that's 10^500 combinations.
>
>
>  now, if implementing my method, in the simplest of forms, it would be
> 10^500 * 8!^500 (factorial). is that still decryptable by brute force?
>
>
>  However, I did add the dimension of not using base 2 or ASCII as I
> discuss in my article. so you have to go back and do it all again at least
> a second time for the several bases I mentioned. So, 3*(10^500 * 8!^500
> (factorial).
>
>
>  as i mention in my article, a ciphertext of 500 characters could be an
> encrypt of a plaintext of 500 or 375 or 250 characters. so, each possible
> merge has to first be removed. Then, brute forced decrypted. The equation
> for mask calculation was mentioned, but not inserted into the article. That
> would exceeded submission lengths.
>
>
>  however, implementing my method with masking/merging would potentially
> variably alter the message length. taking simpler methods that i described
> in my paper, of a mask of 8 or 4 bits in a 16 bit data stream (see the
> illustration in the article), the number of masks would be 84,480 & 7,280
> respectively. These too would have to be removed.
>
>
>  The following includes only 2 of 15 possibilities.
>
>
>  So, [84,480*(3*10^250*(8!)^250)]+[7,280*(3*10^375*(8!)^375)]+[3*10^500 *
> (8!)^500].
>
>
>  Are we still in the realm of brute force?
>
> you are definitely not rude.  and, yeah, making a discovery or invention
> in encryption, has got to be very rare.  that is why i ran this by every
> math professor & colleague i knew, before submission.  easy to err on this
> things.
>
> --- jd.cypherpunks at gmail.com wrote:
>
> From: "jd.cypherpunks" <jd.cypherpunks at gmail.com>
> To: "givonne at 37.com" <givonne at 37.com>
> Cc: Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com>, "cryptography at randombit.net" <
> cryptography at randombit.net>
> Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:20:13 +0200
>
> Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One: On the second paper, you assume a prime number as long as the message
> is secure, and give an example of a message of 500 characters. Assuming
> ASCII coding and compression, that will be just a few hundred bits. RSA
> (using primes too) of 1024 bits is now being considered insecure by more
> and more people. I'm afraid that simple bruteforce could break your scheme
> quite fast. Also, why not use simple XOR in that case?
>
>
> Yep - bruteforce will work here.
> btw - when it comes to 'non-decryptable encryption' I still like OTP. :)
> Read or re-read Steven Bellovins wonderfull piece about Frank Miller, the
> Inventor of the One-Time Pad
> https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=1460
>
> I'm not a rude guy and try not to diminish your archievments but there's
> some truth in the following sentence: Even if clever beyond description the
> odds that someone without too much experience in the field can
> revolutionize cryptography are small. Can't remember who said this - or
> something similar to this - but it's true anyhow. Think about this every
> time when I try to 'invent' something within my fields. :)
>
> --Michael
>
>
>
> Den 18 jun 2012 12:56 skrev "Givonne Cirkin" <givonne at 37.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> My name is Givon Zirkind.  I am a computer scientist.  I developed a
> method of encryption that is not decryptable by method.
> You can read my paper at: http://bit.ly/Kov1DE
>
> My colleagues agree with me.  But, I have not been able to get pass peer
> review and publish this paper.  In my opinion, the refutations are
> ridiculous and just attacks -- clear misunderstandings of the methods.
> They do not explain my methods and say why they do not work.
>
> I have a 2nd paper:  http://bit.ly/LjrM61
> This paper also couldn't get published.  This too I was told doesn't
> follow the norm and is not non-decryptable.  Which I find odd, because it
> is merely the tweaking of an already known method of using prime numbers.
>
> I am asking the hacking community for help.  Help me test my methods.  The
> following message is encrypted using one of my new methods.  Logically, it
> should not be decryptable by "method".  If you can decrypt it, please let
> me know you did & how.
>
> CipherText:
>
>
> 113-5-95-5-65-46-108-108-92-96-54-23-51-163-30-7-34-117-117-30-110-36-12-102-99-30-77-102
>
> Thanks.
>
> I have a website about this:  www.givonzirkind.weebly.com
> For information about the Transcendental Encryption Codec click on the
> "more" tab.
> Also, on Facebook,
> https://www.facebook.com/TranscendentalEncryptionCodecTec
>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/TranscendentalEncryptionCodecTec>Givon Zirkind
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address !
>
> _______________________________________________
> cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at randombit.net
> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
>
> _______________________________________________
> cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at randombit.net
> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address !
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20120620/4d8ee663/attachment.html>


More information about the cryptography mailing list