“Handbook of Applied Cryptography” A. Menezes, Paul Van Oorschoot, S Vanstone. - Adacrypt
adacrypt
This normally impeccable information source is now inaccurate and in
need of immediate updating for reasons that will be outlined here.
The main criticism is that it wrongly defines a one-way mathematical
function. This so-called one-way mathematical function together with
pseudo-randomness is the basis of all the cryptography that is
described in the book. The writer will demonstrate that this one-way
mathematical function is incorrect in the light of recent work and is
now relegated to only a pseudo one-way mathematical function that is
now being wrongly presented as the former. The theory of the one-way
function described by the book is still valid in the ciphers being
described therein but these are becoming anachronistic now and will
soon disappear into history.
This writer has developed a true one-way mathematical function and he
has also developed true randomness. The effect of these discoveries
is to make theoretically unbreakable cryptography a reality. The
general impressions of the handbook is that theoretically unbreakable
cryptography is not possible outside of the one-time pad cipher and
only complexity-theoretic cryptography which is second best
‘practically unbreakable’, is currently achievable. The incorrect
definition of a one-way function is implicit in a lot of the chapters
on the cryptography being expounded in the handbook and indeed casts
doubt on how much of the book is now of benefit to readers.
Lemma_1
True randomness works by reducing a cryptanalyst to guessing that the
operand of the cipher text item he is instantaneously trying to break
is one of a finite set of operands that all have equal probability of
being the correct one.
Lemma_2
This is the same as lemma_1 except that it works by reducing a
cryptanalyst to guessing that the operand of the cipher text item he
is instantaneously trying to break is one of an infinite set of
operands that all have equal probability of being the correct one.
Lemma-2 is not superior to lemma_1 but the mechanics of achieving
randomness and a true mathematical function is very different. They
are both capable of underpinning theoretically unbreakable ciphers
however and it is a matter of convenience which one is preferred.
The one-way mathematical function in question by the writer is a
vector function that is computationally impossible (not merely
infeasible) to invert by any means. It requires the intervention of a
human being to provide the ‘trapdoor’ information regarding the
particular change-of-origin vector from the infinite set of such
vectors that exists, that will enable the inersion to happen. Clearly
that means the transfer of data from a human memory to a computer
memory and no computer will ever be able to do that on its own. In
practice, the latter is achieved by the decryption program simply
reading data sequentially from arrays of change-of-origin
coefficients, that are indexed to it by the cipher text.
Theoretically unbreakable cryptography has already being promoted by
the writer and is open to inspection by any interested party.
Recapping.
1) Randomness in cryptography means equal probability between the
elements of a set of raw encryption data.
2) One-way functions in mathematics are acknowledged to exist but
examples are unknown, the writer is claiming a change-of-origin to a
frame of reference in applied vectors is a de facto exception.
Both 1) and 2) ploys necessarily use the concept of synchronized
databases in cryptography, also described on my website.
Suitably equipped geometer / cryptographer readers will readily
understand this claim to a change-of-origin being a mathematical one-
way-function in vector cryptography, it is explained in full also on
my website http://www.adacrypt.com under “A New Approach to
Cryptography”. –
Appendix.
Ref. P.115 “Handbook of Applied Cryptography” A. Menezes, Paul Van
Oorschoot, S Vanstone.
Quote “ Recall (Definition 1.12) that a function ‘f’ is called one-way
if f(x) is easy to compute for all 'x' in its domain, but for
essentially all ‘y’ in the range of ‘f’ it is computationally
infeasible to find any ‘x’ such that f(x) = y.
(Also,)
Quote,
Three (Candidate) one-way functions.
Although no proof is known for the existence of a one-way function, it
is widely believed that one-way functions do exist …(cf Remark 9.12)
Unquote. Further down the page, the RSA cipher is considered a
candidate for a one-way function in the handbook. Clearly, the RSA
cipher is only practically unbreakable in class so that the inference
is clear also that the one-way function defined earlier is not truly
one-way and it is fair comment to say it is merely pseudo-one-way
instead, in a similar way to pseudo randomness not possessing true
randomness.
It is necessary to labour these points now especially that a de facto
one-way function is on the table for all to see together with true
randomness, which incidentally is very easy to achieve by computer –
driven ciphers. - Enjoy - Adacrypt.
pubkeybreaker
> This normally impeccable information source is now inaccurate and in
> need of immediate updating for reasons that will be outlined here.
>
> The main criticism is that it wrongly defines a one-way mathematical
> function.
<snip>
> It is necessary to labour these points now especially that a de facto
> one-way function is on the table for all to see together with true
> randomness, which incidentally is very easy to achieve by computer –
> driven ciphers. - Enjoy - Adacrypt.
Your are becoming progressively more deluded.
rossum
<austin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This writer has developed a true one-way mathematical function and he
>has also developed true randomness. The effect of these discoveries
>is to make theoretically unbreakable cryptography a reality. The
>general impressions of the handbook is that theoretically unbreakable
>cryptography is not possible outside of the one-time pad cipher and
>only complexity-theoretic cryptography which is second best
>‘practically unbreakable’, is currently achievable. The incorrect
>definition of a one-way function is implicit in a lot of the chapters
>on the cryptography being expounded in the handbook and indeed casts
>doubt on how much of the book is now of benefit to readers.
What you have developed can be shown to be incorrect using the
standard mathematical definitions that everyone else uses, so I can
understand your motivation in wanting to change the definitions to
suit your work.
If you want to use your own definitions then go ahead, but you are no
longer doing either mathematics or cryptography. You might be said to
be doing "adacryptology", but I suspect that most other people will
want to stick with the usual definitions, mathematics and
cryptography.
What you have developed is a form of "Two Time Pad", because you are
reusing the data in your database. If you reuse data then your cypher
is breakable.
I have downloaded a copy of HAC, and an excellent book it is too.
rossum
Gordon Burditt
>need of immediate updating for reasons that will be outlined here.
The normally loony information source, adacrypt, is still inaccurate
and in need of immediate discarding for reasons that will be outlined
here.
>The main criticism is that it wrongly defines a one-way mathematical
>function. This so-called one-way mathematical function together with
>pseudo-randomness is the basis of all the cryptography that is
>described in the book.
Incorrect. The one-time-pad, which you claim is described in the
book, does not use pseudo-randomness.
>The writer will demonstrate that this one-way
>mathematical function is incorrect in the light of recent work and is
>now relegated to only a pseudo one-way mathematical function that is
>now being wrongly presented as the former. The theory of the one-way
>function described by the book is still valid in the ciphers being
>described therein but these are becoming anachronistic now and will
>soon disappear into history.
Your Vector Snake Oil, er, Vector Cryptography uses symmetric
encryption. It will not replace RSA or other public-key encryption
methods in applications which depend on the public-key attributes
of the encryption.
>This writer has developed a true one-way mathematical function and he
>has also developed true randomness.
Adacrypt did not invent the One Time Pad. Adacrypt recognizes true
randomness in many places where it isn't.
>The effect of these discoveries
>is to make theoretically unbreakable cryptography a reality. The
Adacrypt's Two Many Time Pad is not theoretically unbreakable.
>general impressions of the handbook is that theoretically unbreakable
>cryptography is not possible outside of the one-time pad cipher and
>only complexity-theoretic cryptography which is second best
>=91practically unbreakable=92, is currently achievable. The incorrect
>definition of a one-way function is implicit in a lot of the chapters
>on the cryptography being expounded in the handbook and indeed casts
>doubt on how much of the book is now of benefit to readers.
You don't get to redefine standard mathematical or cryptographic
terminology for your own purposes unless they contain the characters
'adacrypt' or 'snake'.
>Lemma_1
>
>True randomness works by reducing a cryptanalyst to guessing that the
>operand of the cipher text item he is instantaneously trying to break
>is one of a finite set of operands that all have equal probability of
>being the correct one.
>
>Lemma_2
>
>This is the same as lemma_1 except that it works by reducing a
>cryptanalyst to guessing that the operand of the cipher text item he
>is instantaneously trying to break is one of an infinite set of
>operands that all have equal probability of being the correct one.
Lemma-2 does not apply to Adacrypt's ciphers because they do not
use an infinite key size.
Human brains and computers do not function at infinite speed, so
'instantaneously trying' makes no sense.
Cipher text does not have 'operands'.
>Lemma-2 is not superior to lemma_1 but the mechanics of achieving
>randomness and a true mathematical function is very different. They
>are both capable of underpinning theoretically unbreakable ciphers
>however and it is a matter of convenience which one is preferred.
>The one-way mathematical function in question by the writer is a
>vector function that is computationally impossible (not merely
>infeasible) to invert by any means.
>It requires the intervention of a
>human being to provide the =91trapdoor=92 information regarding the
>particular change-of-origin vector from the infinite set of such
>vectors that exists, that will enable the inersion to happen.
You don't have an infinite key size to choose between an infinite
number of snakes, er, vectors, so there are NOT an infinite number
of vectors that will be chosen.
>Clearly
>that means the transfer of data from a human memory to a computer
>memory and no computer will ever be able to do that on its own. In
>practice, the latter is achieved by the decryption program simply
>reading data sequentially from arrays of change-of-origin
>coefficients, that are indexed to it by the cipher text.
>
> Theoretically unbreakable cryptography has already being promoted by
>the writer and is open to inspection by any interested party.
No, that's theoretically laughable snakeography.
>
>Recapping.
>
>1) Randomness in cryptography means equal probability between the
>elements of a set of raw encryption data.
>
>2) One-way functions in mathematics are acknowledged to exist but
>examples are unknown, the writer is claiming a change-of-origin to a
>frame of reference in applied vectors is a de facto exception.
>
>Both 1) and 2) ploys necessarily use the concept of synchronized
>databases in cryptography, also described on my website.
Using the concept of synchronized databases means that you re-use
random data, making it *NOT* theoretically unbreakable.
>Suitably equipped geometer / cryptographer readers will readily
>understand this claim to a change-of-origin being a mathematical one-
>way-function in vector cryptography, it is explained in full also on
>my website http://www.adacrypt.com under =93A New Approach to
>Cryptography=94. =96
>
>Appendix.
>
>Ref. P.115 =93Handbook of Applied Cryptography=94 A. Menezes, Paul Van
>Oorschoot, S Vanstone.
>
>Quote =93 Recall (Definition 1.12) that a function =91f=92 is called one-wa=
>y
>if f(x) is easy to compute for all 'x' in its domain, but for
>essentially all =91y=92 in the range of =91f=92 it is computationally
>infeasible to find any =91x=92 such that f(x) =3D y.
>
>(Also,)
>Quote,
>Three (Candidate) one-way functions.
>
>Although no proof is known for the existence of a one-way function, it
>is widely believed that one-way functions do exist =85(cf Remark 9.12)
>
>Unquote. Further down the page, the RSA cipher is considered a
>candidate for a one-way function in the handbook.
Symmetric cryptography *WILL NOT* replace RSA, regardless of how
good it is. RSA has many attributes that symmetric cryptography
cannot provide and many uses of it depend on these attributes.
>Clearly, the RSA
>cipher is only practically unbreakable in class so that the inference
>is clear also that the one-way function defined earlier is not truly
>one-way and it is fair comment to say it is merely pseudo-one-way
>instead, in a similar way to pseudo randomness not possessing true
>randomness.
>
>It is necessary to labour these points now especially that a de facto
>one-way function is on the table for all to see together with true
>randomness, which incidentally is very easy to achieve by computer =96
>driven ciphers. - Enjoy - Adacrypt.
True randomness is not achievable in a deterministic computer. You
need hardware support using quantum-mechanical effects to get
randomness (which might include things like keystroke timing,
measurement of radioactive decay, measurement of thermal noise,
coin flipping, etc.).
Jules César
[...]
> If you want to use your own definitions then go ahead, but you are no
> longer doing either mathematics or cryptography. You might be said to
> be doing "adacryptology",
Or maybe "adaptology" ??
Regards,
C.J. Caesar (I known, my cipher is breakable)
rossum
wrote:
You did better than you think. According to a formal cryptanalysis,
see: http://www.anagram.com/~jcrap/Volume_3/caesar.pdf
your cypher has better resistance to differential cryptanalysis than
AES. Indeed differential cryptanalysis gives precisely zero further
limitations on possible keys.
It also has very good resistance to linear cryptanalysis.
rossum
Boon
> You did better than you think. According to a formal cryptanalysis,
> see: http://www.anagram.com/~jcrap/Volume_3/caesar.pdf
Errr...
"""
1.Introduction
Caesar Cipher is the most important one in cryptology. Take any book on
the subject, you are sure to find its description right in the first
chapter.
"""
Is this written tongue-in-cheek?
"""
5. Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Alice and Bob.
"""
Heh.
Phil Carmody
> rossum wrote:
>
>> You did better than you think. According to a formal cryptanalysis,
>> see: http://www.anagram.com/~jcrap/Volume_3/caesar.pdf
>
> Errr...
>
> """
> 1.Introduction
> Caesar Cipher is the most important one in cryptology. Take any book
> on the subject, you are sure to find its description right in the
> first chapter.
> """
>
> Is this written tongue-in-cheek?
Oh, please....
Phil
--
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug.
It causes governments to wage war against their own people.
-- Dave Seaman (sci.math, 19 Mar 2009)
rossum
You will have noted that the article I referenced was from "The
Journal of Craptology".
I particularly like the article by R. R. Martin "How to Trivially
Perform Identify Theft, and How to Prevent It" from Volume 6.
rossum
Boon
> Boon wrote:
>
>> Is this written tongue-in-cheek?
>
> Oh, please....
I guess I had a "whoosh" moment.