Patterns

[The Doctor]

Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?

*1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
The ignorant won't rest until everyone is as dumb as they are. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

[Jakob Bohm]

On 2024-02-13 02:30, The Doctor wrote:
> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>
> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>

Probably a one time pad customized to generating this particular
"ciphertext" for a specific plaintext. Of cause, this can only
be done by knowing the message before the key is chosen, thus
making it equally easy to just share the plaintext over that key
distribution channel .


Enjoy

Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>
> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456

None? lol. just kidding. Humm...

Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm generated
it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)

[Rich]

As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can then
'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output from that
message. The usual issues with getting the OTP to Bob so Bob can
decrypt still apply.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
> In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>>>
>>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>>
>> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
>>
>> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
>> generated it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)
>
> As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can then
> 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output from that
> message.

Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or Alice),
they can create a special plaintext that generates this output for fun.

> The usual issues with getting the OTP to Bob so Bob can
> decrypt still apply.

Indeed.

[Stefan Claas]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
> > In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> >>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
> >>>
> >>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
> >>
> >> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
> >>
> >> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
> >> generated it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)
> >
> > As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can
> > then 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output
> > from that message.
>
> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
> output for fun.

How would you do this? I mean the OP IMHO does not show an encrypted
string, done with an OTP. OTPs nature is that it does not include
patterns and is totally random.

Even if this string is not encrypted and only encoded, how would one
get such pattern from plain text and convert it back to plain text?

It had been best if the OP had posted a reference URL ...

Regards
Stefan
--
----Ed25519 Signature----
924d68b09939ff530a360fb2865c20195c09f0c0278c1e189d9a2ec3d036d252
c1fb0947cde91b30f3a85319c063eb0d72fce5b739a2bd9ea09bc55bb65e4e01

[Rich]

In sci.crypt Stefan Claas <pol...@tilde.club> wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
>> > In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>> >>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>> >>>
>> >>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>> >>
>> >> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
>> >>
>> >> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
>> >> generated it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)
>> >
>> > As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can
>> > then 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output
>> > from that message.
>>
>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
>> output for fun.
>
> How would you do this?

For a traditional, 1940's substution style OTP, it is trivial:

Message: The

Pad:

T=H
e=r
h=e

Substitute using the pad, get the encrypted message: Her

One can do the same in reverse, if one has an encrypted message, one
can "fashion" a "pad" that will appear to make the message decrypt to
anything you like (so long as "anything" is the same length as the
encrypted message). Note that for the above I picked that pad on
purpose so that "The" would /encrypt/ to "Her".

If one uses XOR to encrypt using their OTP then fashioning a "pad" to
transform X into Y is simply byte wise X (xor) Y. The result is a pad
that will transform X into Y (or Y into X) by XOR.

> I mean the OP IMHO does not show an encrypted string, done with an
> OTP.

That's the magic of OTP's that provide their prefect secrecy, we can't
know if that is an ecrypted string, decrypted string, or just random
line noise. All possible "decryptions" are possible, and finding the
one 'needle' in the haystack of "not the right pad this time" is
troublesome. Less so in today's world where a computer can "spell
check" the message and dismiss much of the hay in a near instant.

> OTPs nature is that it does not include patterns and is totally
> random.

Properly secure OTP's, yes. But we can't know with certianty that OP's
original string was not from a 'custom crafted OTP'.

> Even if this string is not encrypted and only encoded, how would one
> get such pattern from plain text and convert it back to plain text?

By choosing the "encoding" in order to make such happen.

> It had been best if the OP had posted a reference URL ...

I doubt OP found the string at some URL. I suspect the OP was
trolling.

[Stefan Claas]

Rich wrote:

> In sci.crypt Stefan Claas <pol...@tilde.club> wrote:
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> >> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
> >> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
> >> output for fun.
> >
> > How would you do this?
>
> For a traditional, 1940's substution style OTP, it is trivial:
>
> Message: The
>
> Pad:
>
> T=H
> e=r
> h=e
>
> Substitute using the pad, get the encrypted message: Her

Well, one uses a substitution table, trigraph, etc. and then
a pad to encrypt the message. Otherwise it would be a plain
text encoded message, right?

> > It had been best if the OP had posted a reference URL ...
>
> I doubt OP found the string at some URL. I suspect the OP was
> trolling.

That was my thought too and the reason why I did not reply to him
directly.

Regards
Stefan
--
----Ed25519 Signature----

cec364f80a628ea8fa2d4734e0cf804ad331b8d6f2e65c1f2f7441fc2728186c
2cc5ce7d3e5d69a80c0140c8973536ed840a5613f727eb5924612d392b7ea202

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/15/2024 12:20 PM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>> In sci.crypt Stefan Claas <pol...@tilde.club> wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
>>>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
>>>> output for fun.
>>>
>>> How would you do this?
>>
>> For a traditional, 1940's substution style OTP, it is trivial:
>>
>> Message: The
>>
>> Pad:
>>
>> T=H
>> e=r
>> h=e
>>
>> Substitute using the pad, get the encrypted message: Her
>
> Well, one uses a substitution table, trigraph, etc. and then
> a pad to encrypt the message. Otherwise it would be a plain
> text encoded message, right?

Give me a OPT 3 bytes long. Creating a plaintext that results in a
ciphertext of say 123, or ABC is possible...

[Stefan Claas]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 12:20 PM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> >> In sci.crypt Stefan Claas <pol...@tilde.club> wrote:
> >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> >>>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
> >>>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
> >>>> output for fun.
> >>>
> >>> How would you do this?
> >>
> >> For a traditional, 1940's substution style OTP, it is trivial:
> >>
> >> Message: The
> >>
> >> Pad:
> >>
> >> T=H
> >> e=r
> >> h=e
> >>
> >> Substitute using the pad, get the encrypted message: Her
> >
> > Well, one uses a substitution table, trigraph, etc. and then
> > a pad to encrypt the message. Otherwise it would be a plain
> > text encoded message, right?
>
> Give me a OPT 3 bytes long. Creating a plaintext that results in a
> ciphertext of say 123, or ABC is possible...

Yes, but then it is not OTP encryption and only plain code, done
with substitution, I would say. The OP's Subject: is Patterns.

Regards
Stefan
--
----Ed25519 Signature----

0722421a0b6680c4ade0fcaac8d76552cf746531dd89eeca1b7db32ecef8bceb
9c4ca60a0298d56bd96340d8a4a1b05bc4c38d6fcf13d8aa2633018b09f0ff0f

[Stefan Claas]

Stefan Claas wrote:

> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/2024 12:20 PM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > >> In sci.crypt Stefan Claas <pol...@tilde.club> wrote:
> > >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
> > >>>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
> > >>>> output for fun.
> > >>>
> > >>> How would you do this?
> > >>
> > >> For a traditional, 1940's substution style OTP, it is trivial:
> > >>
> > >> Message: The
> > >>
> > >> Pad:
> > >>
> > >> T=H
> > >> e=r
> > >> h=e
> > >>
> > >> Substitute using the pad, get the encrypted message: Her
> > >
> > > Well, one uses a substitution table, trigraph, etc. and then
> > > a pad to encrypt the message. Otherwise it would be a plain
> > > text encoded message, right?
> >
> > Give me a OPT 3 bytes long. Creating a plaintext that results in a
> > ciphertext of say 123, or ABC is possible...
>
> Yes, but then it is not OTP encryption and only plain code, done
> with substitution, I would say. The OP's Subject: is Patterns.

To be more clear, an OTP encrypted message with digits or letters
can of course include 3-5 letter words or a 3-5 digits sequence, but
in case of OTPs this means nothing and I would not call it pattern,
in an encrypted message.

Regards
Stefan
--
----Ed25519 Signature----

48c677c37bef1ad110bea0c0c42da8846f5b1e628b1b04d6f2400cc4696c5171
361fc85f7b1c3ebd65756278b51194f681428720b3b4360c13b7c3d306fd8d0f

[Chris M. Thomasson]

AFAICT, it all boils down to fun with OTP's... ;^)

[William Unruh]

A One Time Pad means what it says. It can only be used once. It must be
the same size as the message to be encrypted (ie you cannot use pad from
earlier in the message to encode later stuff.) Otherwise it is weak. It
is not a substition cypher (eg your T=H e=r h=e ) to encrypt any other
occrances of T, h or e. That is NOT an OTP. It is a MRP (Many time pad)
which is woefully weak. A OTP is unconditionally secret. It cannot be
broken. An MTP is very weak, or a substitiution cypher is very weak
unless the substition block is really large.
OTPs are not fun. They are boring, because there is no way they can be
broken, unless you capture the key. But of course that is their problem
since you have to get the key to the recipient, without the enemy
capturing the key, and the key is huge, so hard to hide.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

There can be some fun. Then it makes one, at least me, think about
prepending plaintext with TRNG data and whacking it with HMAC... ;^)

[Rich]

In sci.crypt William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
> A One Time Pad means what it says. It can only be used once. It must be
> the same size as the message to be encrypted (ie you cannot use pad from
> earlier in the message to encode later stuff.) Otherwise it is weak. It
> is not a substition cypher (eg your T=H e=r h=e ) to encrypt any other
> occrances of T, h or e. That is NOT an OTP. It is a MRP (Many time pad)
> which is woefully weak. A OTP is unconditionally secret. It cannot be
> broken. An MTP is very weak, or a substitiution cypher is very weak
> unless the substition block is really large.
> OTPs are not fun. They are boring, because there is no way they can be
> broken, unless you capture the key. But of course that is their problem
> since you have to get the key to the recipient, without the enemy
> capturing the key, and the key is huge, so hard to hide.

All correct, and also Whoosh!...

The OP (the Doctor, likely trolling as he has not again been seen in
this thread) posted a string of sequential letters and numbers and
asked what "encryption" was used.

Jacob, in message <uqg2om$252r4$1...@dont-email.me> correctly pointed out
that /assuming/ it even was an "encrypted" output, that one way to have
created the sequential string as the "cipher text" was to specially
craft an OTP "pad" for a known message to result in the given output.

Stefan, in message <uqln3h$2pbms$1...@i2pn2.org> asked how this could be
done. My reply with the T=H substitution was an extremely simplified
explanation of how one could craft a pad to cause a given output to
appear.

[William Unruh]

Take the original encrypted text. Write down ANY text of the same length
as the encrypted text. Now take the bitwise xor of the original with
your test. The result will be a one time pad which could have been used
to encrypt your madeup text. Ie, you have found a one time pad which
would decrypt the original encrypted text to your Any text.
Of course the probability that your ANY text was what was originally
encrypted is vanishingly small. (1/2^N) where N is the number of bits
in the encrypted text. )f course if it were known to be english text
that was encrypted, the probability is higher (about 1/2^(N/5) I think,
but that still produces a very very small number, and is probably far
worse than if you just dream the text that was encrypted)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/15/2024 11:02 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
>>> In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>>>>>
>>>>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>>>>
>>>> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
>>>>
>>>> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
>>>> generated it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)
>>>
>>> As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can
>>> then 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output
>>> from that message.
>>
>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
>> output for fun.
>
> How would you do this? I mean the OP IMHO does not show an encrypted
> string, done with an OTP. OTPs nature is that it does not include
> patterns and is totally random.

If Bob and Alice have access to the same OPT, one of them can create a
special plaintext that can give the message in the ciphertext, or
whatever... Think about it... ;^)

[Richard Harnden]

On 20/02/2024 21:09, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 11:02 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>> In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>>>>>
>>>>> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
>>>>>
>>>>> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
>>>>> generated it.  Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted?  ;^)
>>>>
>>>> As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can
>>>> then 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output
>>>> from that message.
>>>
>>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
>>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
>>> output for fun.
>>
>> How would you do this? I mean the OP IMHO does not show an encrypted
>> string, done with an OTP. OTPs nature is that it does not include
>> patterns and is totally random.
>
> If Bob and Alice have access to the same OPT, one of them can create a
> special plaintext that can give the message in the ciphertext, or
> whatever... Think about it... ;^)
>

If the ciphertext is just going to be 123...abc..., then there is no
point in transmitting it.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Thing of using sections of a large OPT to get:

ciphertext: 123456789

plaintext: thefoxrun

Of source, alice is in on the fun. She says 123456789, lol...

Just for different ways of thinking how to use things.

[The Doctor]

In article <ur374g$2n32c$1...@dont-email.me>,

Basically a generic code!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen

What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

[Chris M. Thomasson]

One can encrypt a message in binary while eating soup. The spoons and
the number of times it uses the spoon can encrypt. ;^)

[William Unruh]

On 2024-02-20, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 11:02 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2024 8:45 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>> In sci.crypt Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.t...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> Deos anyone how what encryption is being used here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *1234567890ABCDEF01234567890ABCDEF0123456
>>>>>
>>>>> None? lol. just kidding. Humm...
>>>>>
>>>>> Some combination of plaintext, secret key and cipher algorithm
>>>>> generated it. Probably, the plaintext was hand crafted? ;^)
>>>>
>>>> As Jacob correctly pointed out, if one knows the message, one can
>>>> then 'hand craft' a one-time-pad to generate exactly this output
>>>> from that message.
>>>
>>> Or even the other way around? If one knows the OTP (Bob and/or
>>> Alice), they can create a special plaintext that generates this
>>> output for fun.
>>
>> How would you do this? I mean the OP IMHO does not show an encrypted
>> string, done with an OTP. OTPs nature is that it does not include
>> patterns and is totally random.
>
> If Bob and Alice have access to the same OPT, one of them can create a
> special plaintext that can give the message in the ciphertext, or
> whatever... Think about it... ;^)

Yes, Just do the inverse of the OTP (if it is just xor then xor is also
the inverst) and run it over the encrypted text and get what would have
to have beenused to generate that encrypted text. But one of the
absolutely critical things about OTPs is that it should be irremediably
destroyed after it is used to encrypt the message. So only the person
who ha not already used the OTP should have the OTP.

>
>
>>
>> Even if this string is not encrypted and only encoded, how would one
>> get such pattern from plain text and convert it back to plain text?

OTP xor PlainText=EncryptedText
OTP xor EncryptedText=PlainText.

[Stefan Claas]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> If Bob and Alice have access to the same OPT, one of them can create
> a special plaintext that can give the message in the ciphertext, or
> whatever... Think about it... ;^)

Can you craft an example, maybe with code (that compiles ...)?

BTW. I would appreciate if you and other sci.crypt regulars
can sign my guestbook, on my Gemini-Capsule.

gemini://tilde.club/~pollux/

The guestbook is under Gästebuch.

I am thinking about to set-up a cryptobook for us in Geminispace,
so that small encrypted messages can be left there ... ;-)

Regards
Stefan
--
----Ed25519 Signature----

d9ebda51717e5bf7c606c460e632d40daa4fa4315574e6aa5b030d60a79654d0
6fa37e28bed2cc9d8ec7ba5d51dd97faa279d0ccc208092802bedc262e88bc0e