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 10.50.225.36 with SMTP id rh4mr5730642igc.1.1418650457266; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:34:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.101.12 with SMTP id t12mr25237qge.14.1418650457132; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:34:17 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!h15no10779469igd.0!news-out.google.com!r1ni50qat.1!nntp.google.com!w8no8025964qac.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:34:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=5.80.153.30; posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg NNTP-Posting-Host: 5.80.153.30 References: <1a2fea61-bcc1-43a9-b6e3-edf474308402@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5d31987b-b96b-481b-ac4d-f87114257bb4@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada Connections to this Crypto. From: Austin Obyrne Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:34:17 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24000 Date: 2014-12-15T05:34:17-08:00 List-Id: On Sunday, December 14, 2014 8:28:36 PM UTC, Simon Wright wrote: > Austin Obyrne writes: >=20 > > I have been harassed by some readers with claims that there are ways > > by which 'any' data can be called (whatever that means)and encryption > > will still work. They seem to be saying that this is done by > > user-defined enumeration types that can be used instead of ASCII or > > Latin-1. >=20 > I rather think I take offence at that. You imply that the program I > wrote using your crypto to encrypt/decrypt a ZIP file (which is anything > but Latin-1 text!) was bogus. >=20 > :plonk: May I take the opportunity of aerating a particular point the has been infl= uencing cryptography for far too long. Everybody will agree that binary numbers are extremely counter intuitive an= d it is a prodigious task some times to change a binary number into the equ= ivalent decimal number. One cannot just verbalise (as they should be able = to do) binary numbers as easily as decimal numbers so those magical figment= s of the mathematical imagination that often lead to theorems are far less = likely to be born in such a constrained environment than in the denary worl= d. =20 This is due to the innate complexity of the binary number system. In crypt= ography complexity is seen as a measurable property and cryptography that u= ses complexity to obfuscate reality is simply called complexity-theoretic. Back in the 60'/70's the US government ordained that ASCII would be the sta= ndard in all communications - I applaud that decision and I see nothing wha= tever wrong with ASCII - I like it. What I don't like and I consider a big mistake was to represent (publicly) = the elements of ASCII in binary form and not in decimal form. I conjecture= that the reason for this was the innate counter-intuitiveness of the binar= y number system that suggested itself as a readymade encryption system to t= he government experts of the day. It would fit nicely with the block ciphe= rs of binary digits that they were also planning to come out about the same= time. I contend that this innate complexity of binary numbers was the low-hanging= fruit that beguiled those experts of the day into wrongly going for block = ciphers that would be populated by binary digits. The result is complexity= -theoretic cryptography such as DES firstly and now AES. Admittedly, there= is no way they could have foreseen the enormous power of super-computers t= hat have been realised since then to say nothing of what is on the horizon = that would threaten these block ciphers. The AES encryption system is comp= uter-dependent because if it happens that enough computer power becomes ava= ilable the AES cipher will be prone to being brute forced. How true or fa= lse that premise may be is immaterial. A national government should not k= nowingly sail that close to the wind and should instead be looking for alte= rnatives.=20 Apart from the RSA cipher which is decimal based and brute force-able there= has not been a "Theoretically Unbreakable" cipher since the One-Time pad i= n about 1920 in the past fifty years of trying by all cryptographers world = wide (I claim to be able to demonstrate two such ciphers). The RSA cipher = is a very powerful one but again it is prone to brute force if enough compu= ter materialises - it is also in the second rated class of being, like the= AES only "Practically Unbreakable". My argument is that the failure to design totally unbreakable ciphers is no= t being helped by using the binary number system. Mathematically, the bina= ry number system is a cul-de-sac and is so constrained that no creative ide= as are forthcoming - it is the most infertile ground for creative thinking = one can imagine. Unfortunately complexity theoretic cryptography is still = being promoted and a whole new approach in the form of decimal based crypt= ography is unlikely but that is what is needed. Common sense says that since all known number theory is decimal based there= are many more possibilities for cipher ideas (hope this doesn't open anoth= er stream of petulance) out there in the decimal world than in the binary w= orld. Changing infrastructures of communications systems is enormously expensive = so it is understandable why any government is slow to take it on. It is no= t known to anyone that I know how near we are to the realisation of Quantum= Computing but rumour has that when and if it comes it may blow binary encr= yption and block ciphers out of the water. In any case common sense says there are more opportunities in decimal mathe= matics than in binary. It is incredible to read just the list of titles alone of complexity-theore= tic cipher proposal papers on the web pages of the establishment. The expe= nse of travelling to far flung places to hear these speakers seems to be no= object. After the revolution - Viva. adacrypt