Collision Cryptography - Proposed Fresh Twist to Vector Cryptography.

[austin...@hotmail.com]

Lemma_1
Any point in three-dimensional space is the point of intersection of an infinite number of invisible straight lines that all intersect at that point - only one line may be visible on any occasion but the others are there unseen. The point of intersection will possibly have a different value on each line, an integer value here, a float value there and so on.

When Alice transforms her plaintext-in-hand for encryption into a number it locates itself on one of these lines.

Encryption:
With the means at her disposal Alice calculates another line from the infinite set and identifies the corresponding number on that line. That number, different from her own first computed number probably but not guaranteed with certainty to be so, becomes her public ciphertext which she sends to Bob as such.

Decryption:
Bob is able to reverse the transformation number from Alice's second line to her first line and decode the number that she computed first day.

Eve has no chance.

I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism because if these lines were the flight paths of any type of craft they would be on a collision courses.

This upgrade of vector cryptography will take me some time to implement as an up-and-running cipher - could be months. This upgraded cipher will not be not be any stronger than the current cipher called "Skew Line Encryptions" (cannot be since the latter is already Theoretically Unbreakable) but it will overcome a very important drawback of present ciphers in that the ciphertext-to-plaintext expansion ratio will be as little as 2 or 3 to 1 compared with about 15; 1 at present.

The intention at present is that the two ciphers will eventually run in parallel.

Scríofa ag adacrypt

[Feather Duster]

austin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Decryption:
> Bob is able to reverse the transformation number from Alice's second line
> to her first line and decode the number that she computed first day.

Please explain, in a careful step-by-step explanation, how Bob is able to
reverse this transformation.

You have made an assertion that Bob can reverse the transformation. Please
show, with a worked example here, how Bob can do that.

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
wrote:

>I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism

Metaphor or simile.

"Euphemism" is saying "poopoo" instead of "Windows 10". It is
replacing a bad word or phrase with a more polite one.
"Eu-", Greek for "good", as in the term "Euthanasia" which you really
should consider exploring.

You *constantly* get this one wrong.
Don't you own a dictionary program?

Do you need us to teach you how to open it?
Mand.




addendum: was that harsh?

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

On 2/19/17 8:07 PM, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism
>
> Metaphor or simile.

Perhaps it is a euphemism instead of calling it "crashed cryptography"
or "accident prone cryptography".


--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[austin...@hotmail.com]

Hi Feather Duster,

At the present time only the hypothesis exists. I have said there is a lot of work to do before I write the cipher and am ready to give you a step-by-step demonstration but that will come I can assure you.

Also, without a very good understanding of plane geometry and vetor arithmetic of a fairly advanced level no reader will be able to understand any step-by-step demonstration. It is all on my website for you to see but it is not easy to comprehend.

This isn't meant to be patronising just a fact of life.

adacrypt

[Richard Heathfield]

That's an implementation detail, of no interest to great "big picture"
minds like AOB's.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department..."

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Richard Heathfield]

On 20/02/17 07:38, austin...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>

>
> At the present time only the hypothesis exists. I have said there is
> a lot of work to do before I write the cipher and am ready to give
> you a step-by-step demonstration but that will come I can assure
> you.
>
> Also, without a very good understanding of plane geometry and vetor
> arithmetic of a fairly advanced level no reader will be able to
> understand any step-by-step demonstration. It is all on my website
> for you to see but it is not easy to comprehend.
>
> This isn't meant to be patronising just a fact of life.

Okay, so let's list the features so far:

1) no implementation currently exists;
2) the author doesn't currently understand how to decrypt the encrypted
file;
3) even if the author ever does work out how to decrypt, he thinks only
those with advanced mathematical ability will ever be able to follow his
reasoning;
4) when an implementation eventually does exist (if ever), Alice will
have to download and install an Ada compiler, modify the source code to
change the key, recompile, and run the program within the specific Ada
IDE used by the original author. She will then have to phone Bob up to
tell him what changes to make to /his/ source code, so that /he/ can
re-compile /his/ copy, and this all has to happen before she can encrypt
her first file;
5) when it eventually exists, the program will be able to process data
at a fraction of the speed of existing cryptosytems, in keeping with the
author's idea that the modern world is too fast and needs slowing down a
little;
5) it will be able to encrypt /any/ data at all, provided the data only
incorporates octets in the range 32-127, any other data being dropped
silently, thus destroying photographs, videos, sound clips,
word-processed documents, spreadsheets, PDFs, or any other kind of data
other than raw, returnless, tabless ASCII (which rules out HTML and
LaTeX, too, of course);
6) arbitrary corruption during transmission is, on past form, very
likely to occur;
7) the author has at some point in the recent past claimed that a
polyalphabetic substitution cipher of his own devising is
information-theoretically secure (and it was cracked wide open shortly
afterwards);
8) the author has a track record of refusing to answer or even to try to
understand technical questions about his work;
9) the author's Web site is badly designed, with no information actually
on display - to read anything he's posted there, one has to download his
stuff and then unzip it, which one might do once but surely wouldn't do
twice.

As I look at the above feature list, Austin, I have to say that there's
one thing that puzzles me: why the hell isn't the world beating a path
to your door?

[Jens Stuckelberger]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 02:07:39 +0000, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism
>
> Metaphor or simile.
>
> "Euphemism" is saying "poopoo" instead of "Windows 10".

Actually, he got it exactly right, for the reasons that you, very
adroitly, point out.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 20/02/2017 10:13, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 7) the author has at some point in the recent past claimed that a
> polyalphabetic substitution cipher of his own devising is
> information-theoretically secure (and it was cracked wide open shortly
> afterwards);

He continued to argue that even after the way to break it was explained.
More, he argued that using just one pad would also be secure (so arguing
that a simple substitution cipher, provided it was implemented without
using "mathematics" would be secure).

Though to be fair, he did drop ShuttlePads, and in a recent posting
suggested that RSA would have problems in a quantum computing world.
(Though he spoiled that a bit by arguing that AES wasn't "really up to
snuff" for unspecified reasons.)

But still, he's made at least one basically true claim.

[Rich]

Bruce Stephens <bruce.r....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though to be fair, he did drop ShuttlePads,

I suspect that when he again tires of his vector stuff that he will
forget all about the shuttlepads breaks and return to promoting it as
the "be-all and end-all" yet again.

[wizzofozz]

On 20-2-2017 3:07, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism
>
> Metaphor or simile.
>
> "Euphemism" is saying "poopoo" instead of "Windows 10". It is
> replacing a bad word or phrase with a more polite one.

Fair comment.

> "Eu-", Greek for "good", as in the term "Euthanasia" which you really
> should consider exploring.
>

This is stupid.

>
> addendum: was that harsh?
>

Yes, and not even remotely funny.

Ozz

[David Eather]

No, but pointless. As soon as you wrote anything AOB could understand as
not being a glowing endorsement of himself, he turned off and went to the
next thread.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Gordon Burditt]

Why am I reminded here of the villagers with flaming torches storming
Frankenstein's castle?

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

Are you replying to anyone or just feeling nostalgia for the early
movies?

Quoting is good.
Like what I done.
So people know what you are complaining about.
Like they know what I am.
Though I'm not really complaining as such, just trying to help in my
own clumsy way.

You do know *how* to include a quote in your reply?

As an aside, I'm on the monster's side and on the Good Doctor's. I'd
mediate between them, get them to come to a resolution and have them
revolutionise medicine and change forever what it means to be Human.
But I like Science and I think dumb peasants shouldn't have a vote in
the running of it, not even if they vote with forks and fire.

Some of the movies are very good entertainment, even if they do run
against my thinking.
I liked the recent one with the Gargoyles and Angels.

Mand.

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:51:28 +1000, "David Eather" <eat...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

I'm still not sure he sees anything I post.
I know some people do but the lovely Mr. O'Byrne uses Gaggle as his
feed and that is a mutated abortion of a newsserver with peculiarities
and limitations that even Microsoft could never invent.

I do like Mr. O'Byrne, from what I read from him but he does have
some idiosyncrasies. Not listening seems to be one of them.
It's a shame, for he could learn ever so much from you folk. I know I
do.
Not that I show it very often.
Mand.

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:02:35 +0100, wizzofozz
<oscxxx...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 20-2-2017 3:07, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism
>>
>> Metaphor or simile.
>>
>> "Euphemism" is saying "poopoo" instead of "Windows 10". It is
>> replacing a bad word or phrase with a more polite one.
>
>Fair comment.

Thank you.

>
>> "Eu-", Greek for "good", as in the term "Euthanasia" which you really
>> should consider exploring.
>>
>
>This is stupid.

Hmm? "Euthanasia" is an excellent word to use to begin the study of
the sources and etymologies of terms used in English. It is also
euphonic, melodious and a "eu-"-prefixed word that Mr. O'Byrne may
have seen in recent mass media publications so may recognise.
Also, it Wiki-links to "Thanos", who is somewhat of a cool character.

>
>>
>> addendum: was that harsh?
>>
>
>Yes, and not even remotely funny.

Okay. Apologies for the harshness, Mr. O'Byrne, if you are still
reading, which I suspect you probably never were, are or will.
As far as humour goes, well that's a funny thing, isn't it? Often
things that seem guffaw-inspiringly amusing to one person are dull,
obvious, pedestrian, cruel or trite to another.
I, for example, never did see anything humorous in "Dad's Army", that
jungle one or "Steptoe" though millions of my fellow citizens did and
do.
I find "Elephant" jokes hilarious.

Still, you find me offensive. That's fine. I wasn't contributing
anything of substance anyway so I'll just return to whatever
meaningless drudgery I was meaninglessly drudging before I polluted
this group.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Mand.


>
>Ozz

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

Subtle.
Mand.

[Mandy Liefbowitz]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:56:08 -0600, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

>On 2/19/17 8:07 PM, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:19:15 -0800 (PST), austin...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am calling this "Collision Cryptography" as a euphemism
>>
>> Metaphor or simile.
>
>Perhaps it is a euphemism instead of calling it "crashed cryptography"
>or "accident prone cryptography".

I did consider this but thought it too deep for Mr. O'Byrne. Still,
maybe he is a finer thinker than we estimated and did intend something
of that sort?
It's a pity I can't ask him as he doesn't read my posts.
Mand.

[Rich]

Mandy Liefbowitz <mandyli...@the.port.side> wrote:
> It's a pity I can't ask him as he doesn't read my posts.

AOB posts via google groups. Therefore he has no killfile (none is
provided by GG last I looked into that aspect). Therefore his only
option to not read your posts is to notice they are from you and skip
over them manually.

And since GG attempts to twist usenet into a false facebook like "wall"
your post is always in view until he scrolls it out of the way to see
another post.

So he likely sees them (hard not to do so) and likely reads some (also
hard not to do so, given the awful GG interface) but he simply chooses
not to reply to anyone who appears to question him.

[Rich]

Mandy Liefbowitz <mandyli...@the.port.side> wrote:
> I'm still not sure he sees anything I post.

Since he uses google groups it is hard for him not too.

But you embarassed him trememdously when you so rightfully pointed out
last year that no one (save maybe him) could even figure out how to do
anything with his "code" on his website without enormous amounts of
study.

So he is now ignoring you as best he can.

But given the awful UI that is google groups it is very hard for him
not to see things you post.

[wizzofozz]

On 22-2-2017 10:46, Mandy Liefbowitz wrote:
>
> As far as humour goes, well that's a funny thing, isn't it? Often
> things that seem guffaw-inspiringly amusing to one person are dull,
> obvious, pedestrian, cruel or trite to another.

So true

> I, for example, never did see anything humorous in "Dad's Army", that
> jungle one or "Steptoe" though millions of my fellow citizens did and
> do.
> I find "Elephant" jokes hilarious.
>

Elephants are always fun, I guess.

> Still, you find me offensive. That's fine. I wasn't contributing
> anything of substance anyway so I'll just return to whatever
> meaningless drudgery I was meaninglessly drudging before I polluted
> this group.
> Sorry to have bothered you.

Well, you didn't really bother me, but you asked a question, so I replied.
And it's never to late to start contributing useful stuff; Chris is
still waiting for someone to proofread his paper on fractal encryption
and Richard is looking forward to a break of his CDX-3 cipher.
And every now and then some people post incomprehensible math stuff
which you could try to translate for the general public. Asking
questions will entertain and help the lurkers (at least, it entertains me).
So, plenty to do :-)

Ozz

[Phil Carmody]

Mandy Liefbowitz <mandyli...@the.port.side> writes:
> I, for example, never did see anything humorous in "Dad's Army", that
> jungle one or "Steptoe" though millions of my fellow citizens did and
> do.

/It Ain't Half Hot Mum/?

Land of hope and glory ...

... SHADDAAAAP!!!!

--
Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when the DSM has
a cozy little place next to the bible in the "Fiction" shelf
in the library.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/02/17 08:54, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Mandy Liefbowitz <mandyli...@the.port.side> writes:
>> I, for example, never did see anything humorous in "Dad's Army", that
>> jungle one or "Steptoe" though millions of my fellow citizens did and
>> do.
>
> /It Ain't Half Hot Mum/?
>
> Land of hope and glory ...
>
> ... SHADDAAAAP!!!!

Actually half a line later than that, after "Ruler of the Free".

But by far the most memorable line in IAHHM (and one that I still use
frequently) is Windsor Davies's immortal "Oh dear. How sad. Never mind."

[Phil Carmody]

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 28/02/17 08:54, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Mandy Liefbowitz <mandyli...@the.port.side> writes:
> >> I, for example, never did see anything humorous in "Dad's Army", that
> >> jungle one or "Steptoe" though millions of my fellow citizens did and
> >> do.
> >
> > /It Ain't Half Hot Mum/?
> >
> > Land of hope and glory ...
> >
> > ... SHADDAAAAP!!!!
>
> Actually half a line later than that, after "Ruler of the Free".

Ellipses, dear boy, ellipses.

> But by far the most memorable line in IAHHM (and one that I still use
> frequently) is Windsor Davies's immortal "Oh dear. How sad. Never
> mind."

I have no idea what WD line has stuck with me more than any other, and
as such probably more than any line by any other artist in the show,
but I don't actually remember that one. However, he had the best
lines. Reading that imagining his voice in my head, I think you might
be right, even though I have no recollection of having such a memory,

Phil