[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Unbreakable Encryption (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/10/2013 12:31:26 PM EDT
|
I thought this blog entry did a great job of explaining One Time Pad Encryption. I think this is a skill all freedom loving people should know
http://flat5.net/2012/12/one-time-pad/ 
|
|
Just use a playfair cypher with a Ceaser code step.
ETA: password=cypher Phrase: ...................Just use a playfair cypher with a Ceaser code step. Through Playfair: ....mq tu vt cg dt bc gb oi yp he 4o up ja cg vy cy li yv yp c1 Ceaser with 2steps:...os vw xv ei fv de id qk 1r jg 6q wr lc ei x1 e1 nk 1x xr e3 randomize spacing:..osv wxvei fvdei dqk 1rjg6q wrlc eix 1e1n k1x xre3 finished cypher: osv wxvei fvdei dqk 1rjg6q wrlc eix 1e1n k1x xre3 |
|
Quoted: For some in-depth reading on the subject, albeit a fictional one, read "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson. I just read it not too long ago; excellent book. I just finished Snow Crash the other day and it was a real let down after reading Cryptonomicon  Speed |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have written my own one time pads and taught others to do so. The challenge is to write a truly random one time key. If your pad is non-random, your cipher is vulnerable. (I think) From my limited understanding of cryptography, you are theoretically correct. |
|
Quoted: In the cryptonomicon they were able to decipher some messages created with one time pads by looking for the "non-irregularities" (if that's the right word) of the pad creators, combined with contextual words they knew the messages would contain.Quoted: Quoted: I have written my own one time pads and taught others to do so. The challenge is to write a truly random one time key. If your pad is non-random, your cipher is vulnerable. (I think) From my limited understanding of cryptography, you are theoretically correct. Then, they used that info to purposefully broadcast a coded messages on the channel to get a response which the could then figure out almost by context. Speed |
|
Quoted:
Just use a playfair cypher with a Ceaser code step. ETA: password=cypher Phrase: ...................Just use a playfair cypher with a Ceaser code step. Through Playfair: ....mq tu vt cg dt bc gb oi yp he 4o up ja cg vy cy li yv yp c1 Ceaser with 2steps:...os vw xv ei fv de id qk 1r jg 6q wr lc ei x1 e1 nk 1x xr e3 randomize spacing:..osv wxvei fvdei dqk 1rjg6q wrlc eix 1e1n k1x xre3 finished cypher: osv wxvei fvdei dqk 1rjg6q wrlc eix 1e1n k1x xre3 Why bother? |
|
The hyper-masturbatory fascination here with OTP is rather amusing. The number of you making assumptions that are wide open ASSUMPTIONS is unfortunate. How do you plan to securely design, plan, create, produce and print these OTPs? Hopefully not on any computer that ever connects to the Web. Ever. Have any of you ever actually SEEN an OTP? Do you understand the basic physical concepts of how they have to be physically produced? Its not simple. Its not just a pad of sheets you can flip through. How will you securely inventory, transport and deliver these OTPs to all the people that need them? If one of the pads is lost or seized (along with the user) by someone you are concerned about - how will you know? Your system is now compromised. The user probably isn't going to be able to tell you. How will you prevent ALL users (assuming there are more than 2) from reusing a page - when only 2 users use a page? FYI: These aren't Post-It Notes with letters and numbers on them. |
|
Quoted: One time pad can't be broken period. I would love to be able to spend that kind of time creating unbreakable code but I have other shit to do and I ain't a spy. It can't be broken with a truly random pad that is secure to both parties (only). Otherwise all bets are off. Standard crypto is fine, nobody's going to crack a 256-bit symmetric key properly used to secure a message a properly exchanged between parties via an asymmetric key.
|
|
I'm not extremely crypto-literate, but found lots of interesting reading at the following website. There's a great pdf that includes suggestions on text conversion, random-number OTP generation, codebooks for brevity, etc.
http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/onetimepad.htm |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so what your saying is that using my birthday as the password isnt enough  I need to go change the combination on my luggage. BRB...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JNGI1dI-e8
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so what your saying is that using my birthday as the password isnt enough I need to go change the combination on my luggage. BRB... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JNGI1dI-e8
At one airport I was flying through.. Buffalo NY perhaps, the code to one secured room was 4-3-2-1. No joke. The person that put the code in took no measures to cover the pad and actually stood to the right and oblique to the door. I saw the whole thing passing by. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so what your saying is that using my birthday as the password isnt enough I need to go change the combination on my luggage. BRB... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JNGI1dI-e8
At one airport I was flying through.. Buffalo NY perhaps, the code to one secured room was 4-3-2-1. No joke. The person that put the code in took no measures to cover the pad and actually stood to the right and oblique to the door. I saw the whole thing passing by. I'll bet you $5 that wasn't the only door there with that code. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
unbreakable encryption does not exist. the only way to create something we could deem "unbreakable" would be by creating such a convoluted encryption method, that ever bit of energy in the universe wouldn't be enough energy to decrypt it. Pretty much every crypto system in common use has that property. There are other reasons there's no unbreakable crypto though. |
|
Quoted:
I believe when quantum computers become viable, crypto is pretty much dead, as they will supposedly be able to break any crypto instantly. Wouldn't surprise me if NAS already is well along on building one. No. They'll reduce the complexity of attacks on some systems, but not enough to matter. This assumes one can ever be built. No one has really succeeded in doing so yet. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe when quantum computers become viable, crypto is pretty much dead, as they will supposedly be able to break any crypto instantly. Wouldn't surprise me if NAS already is well along on building one. No. They'll reduce the complexity of attacks on some systems, but not enough to matter. This assumes one can ever be built. No one has really succeeded in doing so yet. |
|
Quoted:
unbreakable encryption does not exist. the only way to create something we could deem "unbreakable" would be by creating such a convoluted encryption method, that ever bit of energy in the universe wouldn't be enough energy to decrypt it. You are wrong. IF you use a random key, and only use it ONCE, then it is mathematically proven to be unbreakable. No development in super computers will ever be able to break it as it isn't a math function like other encryption. There is nothing to solve. |
|
Quoted:
I believe when quantum computers become viable, crypto is pretty much dead, as they will supposedly be able to break any crypto instantly. Wouldn't surprise me if NAS already is well along on building one. Quantum computers offer a solution to public key encryption that use integer factorization or discrete logarithms as the barrier to cracking via Shor's algorithm. Problem is you are limited by the number of qubits on how big of a cypher you could crack. Even then, public key encryption isn't nearly as widely used a AES, for example. |
|
Quoted:
unbreakable encryption does not exist. the only way to create something we could deem "unbreakable" would be by creating such a convoluted encryption method, that ever bit of energy in the universe wouldn't be enough energy to decrypt it. Negative. If the key is random, used only once, and possessed only by the originator and the recipient, nobody will be able to break it, assuming a decent encryption scheme. You can fart around forever with it, but you won't figure out what it says. ETA: Too late, see above. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: unbreakable encryption does not exist. the only way to create something we could deem "unbreakable" would be by creating such a convoluted encryption method, that ever bit of energy in the universe wouldn't be enough energy to decrypt it. Negative. If the key is random, used only once, and possessed only by the originator and the recipient, nobody will be able to break it, assuming a decent encryption scheme. You can fart around forever with it, but you won't figure out what it says. ETA: Too late, see above. i think in 100 years, every encryption algorithm used today will be a single day cracking lab at the local community college |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
unbreakable encryption does not exist. the only way to create something we could deem "unbreakable" would be by creating such a convoluted encryption method, that ever bit of energy in the universe wouldn't be enough energy to decrypt it. Negative. If the key is random, used only once, and possessed only by the originator and the recipient, nobody will be able to break it, assuming a decent encryption scheme. You can fart around forever with it, but you won't figure out what it says. ETA: Too late, see above. i think in 100 years, every encryption algorithm used today will be a single day cracking lab at the local community college Then you don't understand how one time pad encryption works. Let me give you a one letter example: I have pulled a random number between one and 26 out of a hat, Then added the value of my message letter to it (A equaling a 1, and Z equaling a 26), The encrypted letter you get to see is the sum of those two numbers,(random number + value of letter), the sum was 5, (also known as an "E" using the values listed above) What was my real message letter? You have no way to figure it out because you don't know what the random number is. What crypto analysis is there to do? None, If someone could figure out how to predict what number is randomly going to be pulled they would win every state lottery every time. ETA If R represents the random number, T represents the original message text, and C represents the coded text, then R+T=C do you see a day when computers can solve this math problem for T when the only know number is C? |
|
Quoted:
OTP is still susceptible to MITM and cryptanalytic attacks. If one uses a truly random OTP with no Internet-computer trace (manually, Geiger-counter/other electronic RNG, etc.), both sides practice meticulous security of the pad, use it once, and securely destroy it after use? Doesn't MITM require at least partial access to someone's key? Otherwise, anything they intercept would be gibberish, and anything they try to transmit as a spoof would also be gibberish. If not, please explain, because my understanding must be too simple. Here's a simplistic example that assumes nobody is able to connect the dots between a sender and receiver to illustrate my question: Say we had a simple plain text code prearranged between two of us that was never disclosed and only used once. Would it not be useless without access to the key? Craigslist ad posted on a prearranged date & time from (from a library computer or free hotspot with a burner smartphone/iPad) in the services section "Swimming pool maintenance & cleaning service. Free estimates, reasonable prices, licensed & bonded. Call 867-5309." Someone in another city, also using a sterile throwaway method to access the Internet, reads the message and initiates his exfil/malicious mischief plan. One could even argue that such steganography is safer in some situations than having to explain why you are in possession of a tiny book with lots of numbers, a miniature microscope to read them, etc. Oh wait, that's already how some terrorist (and logically some good-guy) organizations communicate to people in the field. 
|