Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scalar Cipher – "Scalable Key " Cryptography.
146 views
Skip to first unread message
Austin Obyrne
May 25, 2013, 2:54:40 AM5/25/13
to
Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way.
This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography.
Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever.
I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way.
http://www.adacryptpages.com/
- adacrypt
This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography.
Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever.
I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way.
http://www.adacryptpages.com/
- adacrypt
Austin Obyrne
May 25, 2013, 1:05:50 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:54:40 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
Supplement.
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
How it Works.
Talking around the subject to begin with.
The traditional number line is an arbitrary straight line i.e. it may have any direction and it has periodicity of 1. ‘Periodicity’ is the space between the integer points on the line. This space is equidistant between all the integer points in a particular instance but it is never actually quantified (given scale)i.e. it is never specified by any graphic scale such as say 5 units of length = 1 interval between the integers for all integers – it just goes as one space between integers.
Lets say that everybody knows that the interval i.e. the period between integers may be graphically sketched as being any distance but is conveniently given a nominal 1 as being the period no matter what it may be drawn as, on say a classroom blackboard. This is a kind of nuance of usage that is firmly entrenched in everyday number work.
The ‘scale’ per se then is 1 = 1.
“What you see is what you get.”
In very pedantic terms the equation of the traditional number line is
n = 0 + n.(1) which of course is always n = n but strictly speaking this equation implies a spanning operation where the spanning vector is 1 and the starting point of the spanning operation is at 0 which is also the mid-point of the line. No body ever see it like that however.
n = n for all n means the integer ‘n’ being verbalised by any user is truly ‘n’ representing itself.
The number line then reduces to a sequence of integers in ascending, consecutive order. Nobody ever goes through the formal rigmarole of spanning it out mathematically and an integer has the apparent real value that its name and iconic shape implies - e.g. 500 is 500 and not a spanned representation of 25 (which it could be in another situation).
This is what is meant in discussions by the transparency of numbers – nothing is hidden by any implicit means. Our number system is clear and unambiguous – very simply it is totally ‘transparent’.
Cryptography, Contrived Confusion and Entanglement.
In “Scalable Key Cryptography” all that changes, a customised number line allocates scale to the interval between integers with the deliberate intention of confounding a cryptanalyst.
The scale 1 = 1 is discontinued and is transformed instead into something like say scale : 1750 = 1 which implies that the face value of 7000 on the traditional real number line is only 4 on this customised number line.
A spanning operation has been used to get to the integer number 4 where the spanning vector is 1750 i.e. the value 1750 = 1 is the scale of the contrived line.
Furthermore, the starting point of the spanning operation might be at some off-set zero point and not at the true midpoint of the line at 0.
This note here is a simplistic example that might appear easy to invert to the reader on first inspection but huge entanglement is brought to bear by using a different scale for every single encryption of a single plaintext. A whole lot of random stumbling blocks are generated as keys which are in fact also disparate ‘scale’ values hence the title “Scalable Key”)
A large part of the algorithm is devoted to off-page key generation of the scalable keys that are furthermore linked to two identity positive integers that the entities have exchanged at the oustet.
This is perfectly legitimate maths that is never applied by normal users of integers, it is being hijacked here for use in cryptography.
- adacrypt
Austin Obyrne
May 25, 2013, 2:15:36 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:54:40 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
Supplement-2.
The ciphertext is a string of non-repeating integers. These integers are totally unrelated to each other and were each created on a different number line according to a different equation so clearly although they may now be said to be points on a mutual string this is just a carrier and thay are satisfying any equation.
There is no correlation between them that might support numerical analysis.
Statistical analysis is obviated also by the set of ciphertext being isochronous to a very high degree if not indeed 100% non-repeating.
‘Ciphertext direct’ attack is obviated by the need for correct ‘partitioning’ (per se)of these integers.
The cipher uses a random keyset that is used only once in the encryption of the entire plaintext into ciphertext. Only one keyset is formally nominated for this duty but there are several others around that can be utilised also if required.
Enjoy - adacrypt
praetexi...@gmail.com
May 25, 2013, 7:18:59 PM5/25/13
to
Mind posting the documentation in separate PDFs rather than the package? I won't download Adobe Reader simply to look at one algorithm....
--Praetex
Austin Obyrne
May 26, 2013, 12:47:40 AM5/26/13
to
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:18:59 AM UTC+1, Praetex Infinitum wrote:
> Mind posting the documentation in separate PDFs rather than the package? I won't download Adobe Reader simply to look at one algorithm.... --Praetex
I don't service my own websites - I hand over prepared material which they upload to the site - I havent had time to do it myself in the past - I don't know if they can help you - I am prepared to email you any PDF from my files if that's any good.
> Mind posting the documentation in separate PDFs rather than the package? I won't download Adobe Reader simply to look at one algorithm.... --Praetex
http://www.wdhdesign.co.uk/
- adacrypt
Austin Obyrne
May 26, 2013, 3:19:04 AM5/26/13
to
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:47:40 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:18:59 AM UTC+1, Praetex Infinitum wrote: > Mind posting the documentation in separate PDFs rather than the package? I won't download Adobe Reader simply to look at one algorithm.... --Praetex I don't service my own websites - I hand over prepared material which they upload to the site - I havent had time to do it myself in the past - I don't know if they can help you - I am prepared to email you any PDF from my files if that's any good. http://www.wdhdesign.co.uk/ - adacrypt
I am prepared to email you any PDF from my files if that's any good.
That goes for anybody else also - Cheers - Austin O'byrne
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:18:59 AM UTC+1, Praetex Infinitum wrote: > Mind posting the documentation in separate PDFs rather than the package? I won't download Adobe Reader simply to look at one algorithm.... --Praetex I don't service my own websites - I hand over prepared material which they upload to the site - I havent had time to do it myself in the past - I don't know if they can help you - I am prepared to email you any PDF from my files if that's any good. http://www.wdhdesign.co.uk/ - adacrypt
I am prepared to email you any PDF from my files if that's any good.
Austin Obyrne
May 26, 2013, 7:21:48 AM5/26/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:54:40 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
Supplement – 3
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
“What you see is *not what you get” by deliberate design.
This cryptography is intended to produce ciphertext that is highly cosmetic which is a highly contrived objective by the cryptographer in this cryptography. Intractability is realised by the fact that an item of ciphertext cannot be taken on it's face value but instead must be taken as the outcome of a spanning operation that spans the true plaintext (integer representation)that is hidden within a much larger integer called say, large N. It does it in a manner that is impossible to detect correctly. The security depends on the uncertainty that cascading randomness in several serial key-sets produces to a cryptanalyst.
The confusion to a cryptanalyst that studiously translates as complete uncertainty is caused by the fact that he does not know the spanning vector that was used by the cryptographer nor the starting point of the spanning operation (an off-set zero) that reduces to a ‘space’ of random keys (where ‘random’ means equal probability of being a correct choice).
Even now, a reader may well think this ciphertext is fairly transparent (transparent here means having discernible structure (order) that is retrievable for use by some analytic means) but that is not so in practice. We are only half way there.
Key Generation – How it Works.
This is simply a piece of modular arithmetic that is applied to the two ‘identity’ integers that the entities exchange when setting up the loop.
A search engine finds all the numbers that will divide (all the possible combinations of the full range of positive integers that is bounded by the entities’ ID integers (the two they exchanged initially) when every elementary integer in the range is used in turn to first represent a plaintext and then later to represent a key in this formula. The full set of elements bounded by the range may not be present in the set of keys that will be used but provision is made none the less.
The ‘divisor’ must divide each combination once and only once (must divide once however) and leave a residue that is equal to or greater than zero).
Let N = the divisor.
X is a constant peculiar to the two ID integers that is found empirically by a formulaic means that emanates from the range of the ID’s – it is demonstrated in notes.
Then,
[(Plaintext + X) + (Key + X)} mod N = residue >= 0
In the cipher, N is the scale of the spanning vector, ‘residue’ becomes the amount of confusing off-set given to the midpoint (the natural zero 0) as the start point of the spanning operation of the customised number line, X is a constant ‘Key’ that evolves from the entities’ ID integers, ‘n’ is an arbitrary integer multiplier (an extra key also).
The crypto strength depends on a cryptanalyst being able to backtrack to the plaintext from the ciphertext and correctly determine some 4 or 5 keys enroute.
Knowledge of the ID integers is required to evaluate X.
‘N’ evolves according to the rules stated, as the spanning vector.
The multiplier of N comes from an arbitrary use of small ‘n’ (a key also)
This is an elegant and powerful algorithm – it is my own invention - it was inspired really by the famous Vigenere Square of old but that is another story. The connection with Blaise Vigenere fades out quickly however and owes nothing to him.
SKV means “Scalable Key Vigenere” (so called out of a mild deference to the great man circa 16th century – my cipher owes nothing to the historic Vigenere Cipher of about 1576).
- adacrypt
Austin Obyrne
May 26, 2013, 6:54:25 PM5/26/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:54:40 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> Readers who have downloaded this cryptography under the banner of “SKV Cipher” or “Spancrypt” or UniSpan” please note this cryptography is still unchanged and on download offer and will always remain unchanged as it stands i.e. not altered or updated from what you already have on your computers in any way. This cryptography comes from the same stable as “Vector Cryptography” and is also theoretically unbreakable, it is very efficient and elegant cryptography. Recent attempts by some ‘losers’ to denigrate me by skating over some of the most salient parts of my algorithm in a pretentious analysis and facetiously infer that that this crypto was transparent and facile have been studiously ignored by me and readers should take it that I consider it infra dig to communicate with these people ever. I repeat here that a salient part of this cryptography is the way in which two entities anywhere in the world can easily set up a secure communications loop simply by exchanging two positive integers in some studiously naïve but surreptitious way. http://www.adacryptpages.com/ - adacrypt
Supplement – 4
General algorithm,
[(Plaintext + X) + (Key +X)] mod N = residue >= 0
Encryption,
Ciphertext = residue + n N (true for all nonzero integer ‘n’)
Decryption,
Plaintext = Ciphertext – (n-1) N – 2X – Key
=> 4 random keys to be deduced by any adversary for a correct decryption
Plaintext belongs in a scrambled alphabet comprised of the writable subset of ASCII i.e. elements 32–126 incl.,
=> there are 5 random keys to be determined in all.
- adacrypt
rossum
May 27, 2013, 10:20:45 AM5/27/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT), Austin Obyrne
<austin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Supplement – 4
A suggestion. All these supplements make it look as if you are making
this up as you go along. Take some time away to write a single
definitive description, without any need for supplements. When you
have completed that piece, and spent at least a week reviewing it to
check that no more supplements are needed, then and only then post it
here.
Continually issuing supplements gives the appearance that your initial
post was not fully thought through. In cryptography, not thinking
things through fully is a recipe for error.
$0.02
rossum
<austin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Supplement – 4
A suggestion. All these supplements make it look as if you are making
this up as you go along. Take some time away to write a single
definitive description, without any need for supplements. When you
have completed that piece, and spent at least a week reviewing it to
check that no more supplements are needed, then and only then post it
here.
Continually issuing supplements gives the appearance that your initial
post was not fully thought through. In cryptography, not thinking
things through fully is a recipe for error.
$0.02
rossum
Austin Obyrne
May 27, 2013, 11:15:32 AM5/27/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:20:45 PM UTC+1, rossum wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT), Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Supplement – 4 A suggestion. All these supplements make it look as if you are making this up as you go along. Take some time away to write a single definitive description, without any need for supplements. When you have completed that piece, and spent at least a week reviewing it to check that no more supplements are needed, then and only then post it here. Continually issuing supplements gives the appearance that your initial post was not fully thought through. In cryptography, not thinking things through fully is a recipe for error. $0.02 rossum
What you suggest has been done dozens of times already elsewhere – I’m trying to simplify it here by means of overlapping instalments.
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT), Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Supplement – 4 A suggestion. All these supplements make it look as if you are making this up as you go along. Take some time away to write a single definitive description, without any need for supplements. When you have completed that piece, and spent at least a week reviewing it to check that no more supplements are needed, then and only then post it here. Continually issuing supplements gives the appearance that your initial post was not fully thought through. In cryptography, not thinking things through fully is a recipe for error. $0.02 rossum
Thanks for your comments.
Regards - Austin
Richard Outerbridge
May 27, 2013, 7:14:00 PM5/27/13
to
In article <9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com>,
Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whatever. Does anyone know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new
separate category for this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy
to offer myself as a candidate subject.
__outer
Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whatever. Does anyone know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new
separate category for this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy
to offer myself as a candidate subject.
__outer
David Eather
May 27, 2013, 8:07:33 PM5/27/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:14:00 +1000, Richard Outerbridge
<ou...@interlog.com> wrote:
> 9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com
I don't know if it has yet made a new category being as DK is already
known but I think there is a new phenomenon on display.
I was thinking about a "teachablity" index - and perhaps it could be
expressed as the subjects IQ divided by the subjects self perceived IQ?
But we also have, what I believe is a totally new phenomenon:
Normally, as IQ's drop the subject's interest in "theoretical" subjects
diminishes. In this case we don't do see that. Our "favorite" poster
finds points like probability, entropy and various mathematical concepts
interesting, but then rather than adsorb the new knowledge he processes it
in a way so that it not only becomes nonsense but it corrupts and twists
future learning. In effect his "learning" destroys knowledge.
Is this a first example of a negative IQ?
<ou...@interlog.com> wrote:
> 9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com
I don't know if it has yet made a new category being as DK is already
known but I think there is a new phenomenon on display.
I was thinking about a "teachablity" index - and perhaps it could be
expressed as the subjects IQ divided by the subjects self perceived IQ?
But we also have, what I believe is a totally new phenomenon:
Normally, as IQ's drop the subject's interest in "theoretical" subjects
diminishes. In this case we don't do see that. Our "favorite" poster
finds points like probability, entropy and various mathematical concepts
interesting, but then rather than adsorb the new knowledge he processes it
in a way so that it not only becomes nonsense but it corrupts and twists
future learning. In effect his "learning" destroys knowledge.
Is this a first example of a negative IQ?
Austin Obyrne
May 28, 2013, 2:29:19 AM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:14:00 AM UTC+1, Richard Outerbridge wrote:
> In article <9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com>, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: Whatever. Does anyone know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new separate category for this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy to offer myself as a candidate subject. __outer
‘Smoke and mirrors for failure in cryptography’ – we are here for the pursuance of cryptography alone – not in perverse psychology – sounds as if you should be in another group.
> In article <9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com>, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: Whatever. Does anyone know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new separate category for this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy to offer myself as a candidate subject. __outer
My interest is in the very small but important core intellectuality of cipher design – this is very clear-cut and provable by mathematical proof – there is no subjectivity or philosophy of individuals in it – there can’t be and be mathematical – mathematical proof transcends all of that – ask any school level student.
The much greater and equally important part of cryptography is in what I see to be hands-on crypto management – the actual management of attacks via the crypto system infrastructure – there to be shot at by interlopers.
This is the greater part of cryptography by far and no less intellectually intensive in my view. I hasten to add this is a personal opinion on something I have no experience of.
I am convinced that a strong core cipher back at the ranch can only make things much better for these ‘externally’ exposed cryptographers who are up front in the firing line.
Current cryptography has palpably failed to provide enough security to make things more secure in a world of ever increasing computer power.
I am making a big contribution to this industry with new alternatives in cipher design – there cannot be any argument about it when both of my ciphers are provable by mathematical proof – does that mean anything to you.
Bigotry will easily be overcome by necessity as time goes on and there is no need for any ‘hard sell’ by me in the matter.
Digressing into obtuse psychology and claiming it is some corollary of failure in cryptography is merely “shoot the messenger” tactics that won’t cut any ice with discerning people.
Hope I am reading you correctly.
- adacrypt
David Eather
May 28, 2013, 6:02:28 AM5/28/13
to
You have no mathematical proof that your ciphers are unbreakable - In
fact, there is a well established mathematical proof by no one other than
Shannon (who you like to raise as a 'god') that your cipher CANNOT be
unbreakable. That is a proof/theorem more than 50 years old that has stood
a lot of scrutiny, on the other hand, you have nothing but blind
assertion. Shannon says your cipher cannot be unbreakable.
This is the truth:
Those who had wanted to help you understand the maths have long since
stopped trying because you are incapable of learning.
There are some people in newsgroups who like to make fun of errors - they
have also long since stopped posting because with the true depth of your
ignorance showing it is no longer 'sporting' to make fun of you.
The truth is, your continual attempt to prove your 'greatness' and the
enormous waste of time and effort it has caused to everyone including you,
is incredibly sad.
You might not like it, but no one has been insulting you for a long time.
Not counting this thread which was not addressed to you, but to RO who
started it.
Yes, because you are so closed to knowledge that contradicts your
erroneous beliefs I have honestly tried to reach you with some basic
psychology. You are exactly like the examples I gave earlier. You see them
and hear their proud words but you can see from what they have done they
just don't have a clue and like you they reject out of hand expert
opinions that disagree with them, exactly like you. They are exactly like
you. You only think you are doing a work of 'greatness' when in reality
your efforts are shamefully ignorant, immature and even pathetic.
Everyone can see it, and many have told you so. You do remember that I
contacted you by email years ago to help you with some basic concepts so
you wouldn't publicly embarrass yourself so badly. That is how badly
formed you knowledge is, that strangers would take pity on you, and give
up their time so you don't have to be so foolishly in public.
Every minutes you spend in this pursuit of cryptography is a waste of time
and stops you attending to something that could be truly satisfying for
you. You need psychological help. That is not an insult, that is a fact.
Please get an expert opinion if not from a psychiatrist then these guys -
they deal with professional codes and ciphers and the security of your
country.
Send you stuff to the British Intelligence and Security Committee:
Intelligence and Security Committee
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BQ
Email Address
comm...@isc.x.gsi.gov.uk
Austin Obyrne
May 28, 2013, 8:10:36 AM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:02:28 AM UTC+1, David Eather wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:29:19 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:14:00 AM UTC+1, Richard Outerbridge wrote: >> In article <9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com>, >> Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: Whatever. Does anyone >> know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new separate category for >> this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy to offer myself as a >> candidate subject. __outer > > ‘Smoke and mirrors for failure in cryptography’ – we are here for the > pursuance of cryptography alone – not in perverse psychology – sounds as > if you should be in another group. > > My interest is in the very small but important core intellectuality of > cipher design – this is very clear-cut and provable by mathematical > proof – there is no subjectivity or philosophy of individuals in it – > there can’t be and be mathematical – mathematical proof transcends all > of that – ask any school level student. > > The much greater and equally important part of cryptography is in what I > see to be hands-on crypto management – the actual management of attacks > via the crypto system infrastructure – there to be shot at by > interlopers. > > This is the greater part of cryptography by far and no less > intellectually intensive in my view. I hasten to add this is a > personal opinion on something I have no experience of. > > I am convinced that a strong core cipher back at the ranch can only make > things much better for these ‘externally’ exposed cryptographers who are > up front in the firing line. > > Current cryptography has palpably failed to provide enough security to > make things more secure in a world of ever increasing computer power. > > I am making a big contribution to this industry with new alternatives in > cipher design – there cannot be any argument about it when both of my > ciphers are provable by mathematical proof – does that mean anything to > you. > > Bigotry will easily be overcome by necessity as time goes on and there > is no need for any ‘hard sell’ by me in the matter. > > Digressing into obtuse psychology and claiming it is some corollary of > failure in cryptography is merely “shoot the messenger” tactics that > won’t cut any ice with discerning people. > > Hope I am reading you correctly. > > - adacrypt > > Last post to you AO - except for the one question you have never answered You have no mathematical proof that your ciphers are unbreakable - In fact, there is a well established mathematical proof by no one other than Shannon (who you like to raise as a 'god') that your cipher CANNOT be unbreakable. That is a proof/theorem more than 50 years old that has stood a lot of scrutiny, on the other hand, you have nothing but blind assertion. Shannon says your cipher cannot be unbreakable. This is the truth: Those who had wanted to help you understand the maths have long since stopped trying because you are incapable of learning. There are some people in newsgroups who like to make fun of errors - they have also long since stopped posting because with the true depth of your ignorance showing it is no longer 'sporting' to make fun of you. The truth is, your continual attempt to prove your 'greatness' and the enormous waste of time and effort it has caused to everyone including you, is incredibly sad. You might not like it, but no one has been insulting you for a long time. Not counting this thread which was not addressed to you, but to RO who started it. Yes, because you are so closed to knowledge that contradicts your erroneous beliefs I have honestly tried to reach you with some basic psychology. You are exactly like the examples I gave earlier. You see them and hear their proud words but you can see from what they have done they just don't have a clue and like you they reject out of hand expert opinions that disagree with them, exactly like you. They are exactly like you. You only think you are doing a work of 'greatness' when in reality your efforts are shamefully ignorant, immature and even pathetic. Everyone can see it, and many have told you so. You do remember that I contacted you by email years ago to help you with some basic concepts so you wouldn't publicly embarrass yourself so badly. That is how badly formed you knowledge is, that strangers would take pity on you, and give up their time so you don't have to be so foolishly in public. Every minutes you spend in this pursuit of cryptography is a waste of time and stops you attending to something that could be truly satisfying for you. You need psychological help. That is not an insult, that is a fact. Please get an expert opinion if not from a psychiatrist then these guys - they deal with professional codes and ciphers and the security of your country. Send you stuff to the British Intelligence and Security Committee: Intelligence and Security Committee 35 Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BQ Email Address comm...@isc.x.gsi.gov.uk
*I sincerely hope you stick to your promise not to address me anymore.
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:29:19 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:14:00 AM UTC+1, Richard Outerbridge wrote: >> In article <9034a7cc-5c73-41b7...@googlegroups.com>, >> Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: Whatever. Does anyone >> know whether in the hotly-debated DSM-V a new separate category for >> this sort of thing was created? I'd be happy to offer myself as a >> candidate subject. __outer > > ‘Smoke and mirrors for failure in cryptography’ – we are here for the > pursuance of cryptography alone – not in perverse psychology – sounds as > if you should be in another group. > > My interest is in the very small but important core intellectuality of > cipher design – this is very clear-cut and provable by mathematical > proof – there is no subjectivity or philosophy of individuals in it – > there can’t be and be mathematical – mathematical proof transcends all > of that – ask any school level student. > > The much greater and equally important part of cryptography is in what I > see to be hands-on crypto management – the actual management of attacks > via the crypto system infrastructure – there to be shot at by > interlopers. > > This is the greater part of cryptography by far and no less > intellectually intensive in my view. I hasten to add this is a > personal opinion on something I have no experience of. > > I am convinced that a strong core cipher back at the ranch can only make > things much better for these ‘externally’ exposed cryptographers who are > up front in the firing line. > > Current cryptography has palpably failed to provide enough security to > make things more secure in a world of ever increasing computer power. > > I am making a big contribution to this industry with new alternatives in > cipher design – there cannot be any argument about it when both of my > ciphers are provable by mathematical proof – does that mean anything to > you. > > Bigotry will easily be overcome by necessity as time goes on and there > is no need for any ‘hard sell’ by me in the matter. > > Digressing into obtuse psychology and claiming it is some corollary of > failure in cryptography is merely “shoot the messenger” tactics that > won’t cut any ice with discerning people. > > Hope I am reading you correctly. > > - adacrypt > > Last post to you AO - except for the one question you have never answered You have no mathematical proof that your ciphers are unbreakable - In fact, there is a well established mathematical proof by no one other than Shannon (who you like to raise as a 'god') that your cipher CANNOT be unbreakable. That is a proof/theorem more than 50 years old that has stood a lot of scrutiny, on the other hand, you have nothing but blind assertion. Shannon says your cipher cannot be unbreakable. This is the truth: Those who had wanted to help you understand the maths have long since stopped trying because you are incapable of learning. There are some people in newsgroups who like to make fun of errors - they have also long since stopped posting because with the true depth of your ignorance showing it is no longer 'sporting' to make fun of you. The truth is, your continual attempt to prove your 'greatness' and the enormous waste of time and effort it has caused to everyone including you, is incredibly sad. You might not like it, but no one has been insulting you for a long time. Not counting this thread which was not addressed to you, but to RO who started it. Yes, because you are so closed to knowledge that contradicts your erroneous beliefs I have honestly tried to reach you with some basic psychology. You are exactly like the examples I gave earlier. You see them and hear their proud words but you can see from what they have done they just don't have a clue and like you they reject out of hand expert opinions that disagree with them, exactly like you. They are exactly like you. You only think you are doing a work of 'greatness' when in reality your efforts are shamefully ignorant, immature and even pathetic. Everyone can see it, and many have told you so. You do remember that I contacted you by email years ago to help you with some basic concepts so you wouldn't publicly embarrass yourself so badly. That is how badly formed you knowledge is, that strangers would take pity on you, and give up their time so you don't have to be so foolishly in public. Every minutes you spend in this pursuit of cryptography is a waste of time and stops you attending to something that could be truly satisfying for you. You need psychological help. That is not an insult, that is a fact. Please get an expert opinion if not from a psychiatrist then these guys - they deal with professional codes and ciphers and the security of your country. Send you stuff to the British Intelligence and Security Committee: Intelligence and Security Committee 35 Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BQ Email Address comm...@isc.x.gsi.gov.uk
Before you go,
Any self-respecting professional will be capable of doing his own analysis and there is no more telling binary yardstick than the black or white of mathematical proof which I can and indeed have already produced in my website posts – it transcends all argument but you keep on looking around for ‘hearsay’ evidence from some very fallible sources that you think is more powerful than this – individuals like Shannon for instance whose material is essentially ‘scalar’ and suspect for that reason today.
There is no political substitute for mathematical proof but you seem to think that if you can drum up enough inferred political support by name-dropping from contemporary sources you will be able to over-ride and scotch mathematical proof.
This is mathematical heresy of a kind.
Worse than that you keep on offensively insisting that I should do the same.
The people I point to for proofs of my claims are people like Gauss, Des Cartes, Fermat, Rowan Hamilton ….. – Shannon will never be in that league – his connection with cryptography will almost certainly be swept under the table in years to come.
Incidentally, my stuff has been at GCHQ Cheltenham for over 8 years.
PS - Do you know what mathemtical proof is?? - doesn't sound like it.
- adacrypt
David Eather
May 28, 2013, 8:19:41 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:10:36 +1000, Austin Obyrne
Has *anyone* said your cryptography is good? (that is the one question you
have never answered)
have never answered)
Message has been deleted
Bruce Stephens
May 28, 2013, 11:36:21 AM5/28/13
to
That has the advantage of probably not confusing him by triggering web
counters.
I'm sure parts of the site have changed, but based on what he posts it
hasn't improved much (if at all), and I'd guess most of it is basically
identical.
shop4...@aol.com
Mar 14, 2015, 7:08:41 PM3/14/15
to
DO NOT pay this company any money I have just been scammed out of £15,000 for my websites and they have all been turned off now, this company cannot be trusted go else where, I will be going down the legal route to get my money back www.wdhdesign.co.uk
The owner of this SCAM company is Steve Jones and 0333 2020968
The owner of this SCAM company is Steve Jones and 0333 2020968
0 new messages