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 10.58.201.36 with SMTP id jx4mr1231452vec.35.1386788840633;
 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:07:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.119.133 with SMTP id ku5mr39381obb.4.1386788840566; Wed,
 11 Dec 2013 11:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ie8no9061995qab.0!news-out.google.com!9ni7231qaf.0!nntp.google.com!ie8no9061988qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:07:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <lylhzr2uij.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=86.140.183.44;
 posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.140.183.44
References: <17d3c750-f4c3-47ea-a136-cf1bc7e6874f@googlegroups.com>
 <lylhzr2uij.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a5a18f7d-6188-48d2-82e8-37f46a52e046@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should I Box Clever.
From: Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:07:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-Bytes: 4543
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:184206
Date: 2013-12-11T11:07:20-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:59:48 PM UTC, Simon Wright wrote:
> Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com> writes: > Fortunately, the soft=
ware has been tested this week and is known to > run with sufficient succes=
s in gnat 2013 in a MAC environment for me > to say it is reasonable to ass=
ume without testing that it will also > run in a modern Windows environment=
 using a compiler of that same > vintage. That's going a bit far. The code =
builds OK, but you can't decrypt on Mac OS X (or Linux, or any Unix-based s=
ystem) data that has been encrypted on Windows. This isn't a version-of-GNA=
T problem; it's caused by (what the consensus seems to agree is) a limitati=
on of GNAT's Text_IO.

The code builds OK,=20

<but you can't decrypt on Mac OS X (or Linux, or any=20
Unix-based system) data that has been encrypted on Windows.=20

You are saying understandably that this something you have actually experie=
nced.

In practice this is could not happen because.

I have just explained in another reply that I use the concept of mutual dat=
abases i.e. the entities use identical databases both created by the sendin=
g entity. Whatever is encrypted in either database is decrypted in the othe=
r without fail.  If it does fail at the creation stage then the databases i=
s not used until the reasons why it is failing are corrected and full compa=
tibility is guaranteed at the sending entiy's end. =20

The way it works is that Alice (Industry standard pseoudonym for the sendin=
g entity) writes her encryption program firstly. She then creates the decry=
ption program that decrypts  her earlier ciphertext from the first program.=
  She does'n finish with his until it is perfect and when she has tweaked i=
t for the last time only then does she send an exact copy of it to Bob (the=
 receiving entity.=20

Any problems must be sorted out at that stage and not wait until it gets it=
 to Bob to fail.  Once all that is done we have a mutual database that is l=
iterally a 'closed' loop.  It cannot fail due to compiler incompatiblity or=
 whatever  other cause.

Every thing about the mutual scheme is now constant and totally predictable=
.  The compiler is ratified - the source code is tested, the encryption dom=
ain of plaintext for encryption is guaranteed by belonging to the Latin_1 s=
tandard.

There is perfect symmetry between the entities' databases.

*This idea of creating mutual databases is valid for any operation system.

If it hasn't worked for you then there are basic problems still to be sorte=
d out in the mutual databases (you are not working to such a scheme obvious=
ly but that is the design concept) - it simply cannot go wrong after being =
delivered by Alice to Bob (that is using a one-off secure delivery by trust=
ed courier). =20

Such a scheme completely obviates the highly vulnerable historic problem of=
 key transport in the past.

Alice always decrypts her own plaintext before sending it to Bob as matter =
of form so it should never happen that the ciphertext crashes at Bob's end =
- if it does it may signal tampering en route.

Your experiments are out of kilter with the norm as yet - there is still so=
me way to go - the solutions are just around the coener and I have fears fo=
r the future.

Austin