From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.55.81 with SMTP id t17mr7503418qag.3.1386635769707; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:36:09 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.113.194 with SMTP id ja2mr35914obb.31.1386635769669; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:36:09 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!ie8no5465819qab.0!news-out.google.com!p7ni13971qat.0!nntp.google.com!p15no16004067qaj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:36:09 -0800 (PST) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=109.148.248.100; posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.148.248.100 User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <17d3c750-f4c3-47ea-a136-cf1bc7e6874f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Should I Box Clever. From: Austin Obyrne Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:36:09 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:184156 Date: 2013-12-09T16:36:09-08:00 List-Id: I want to say with correct programming language parlance that I have encryp= tion software that is known to work in Ada-95 using a gnat 311.p compiler a= nd without testing it in more modern compilers I want it to remain at that = level of description for political reasons. I propose saying that it is nat= ive to that environment for the time being subject to testing for more mode= rn settings. Fortunately, the software has been tested this week and is known to run wit= h sufficient success in gnat 2013 in a MAC environment for me to say it is = reasonable to assume without testing that it will also run in a modern Wind= ows environment using a compiler of that same vintage. My reasons for behaving like this is that a huge amount of work has gone in= to creating this invention and testing it in other compilers outside of the= development compiler is almost trivial compared with the original work of = getting it up and running and demonstrating that it is in the ultimate clas= s of =93theoretically unbreakable=94 cryptographic strength.=20 There is some risk of spurious results unrelated to cryptography however be= cause of using strange new unpredictable compilers - the last thing any cip= her wants is doubt being cast on its cryptographic strength and that could = easily ensue. Apart from the historical One-Time Pad ciphers of this class are unheard of= and all modern ciphers that are complexity-theoretic in design are living = on borrowed time (rumours are strong that they have already been broken by = the NSA even on their own AES ciphers in their Data Centre in the Utah dese= rt - they were always only of "practically unbreakable" crypto strength any= way so ....). Testing ciphers that are known to be unbreakable in a certain environment (= i.e. using gnat 311.p compiler however modest) on different modern compiler= s that are very likely to throw up runtime problems is literally going out = on a limb that may well cause damning suspicions that could quite wrongly s= tick to perfectly good ciphers. Clearly, should any big operator like NSA, IBM, MIT take a shine to these c= iphers they could with their huge resources verify my ciphers very quickly = =96 even to rewriting them - it is not prudent for me to do it myself befo= re a highly intransigent, dishonest establishment and risk getting a shadow= of unjustified doubt cast on my work. The question is would I be right in saying that my ciphers are =91native=92= to their development environment? only for the time being but pending bein= g tested in other environments (just want to get the semantics right). Anybody ? adacrypt