Re: Will Ada-95 Programs Written in MS Windows Run in MacOS and Linux Without Some Tweaking.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:46:53 AM UTC, Simon Wright wrote:
> Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com> writes: > The transition of this crypto from Windows to Mac is quite something > and to my limited experience is a formidable task. No. I've put extensions at [1]; the README.txt says ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The files here are intended to work with the SureCrypt software from http://www.adacryptpages.com. They are written against version 85610, and are relatively minor modifications of that software, so the copyright status remains that of the original (Copyright © 2003 Austin O'Byrne). There are two new programs: encrypt and decrypt. Encrypt usage: encrypt original-plaintext ciphertext Decrypt usage: decrypt ciphertext decrypted-plaintext Note that in spite of the use of the word "text" above the programs will work with binary data. The programs will work on Unix and Windows systems. Data encrypted on one can be decrypted on the other if required. Using a recent GNAT compiler, the programs can be built using the supplied cipher.gpr: gnatmake -p -P cipher Simon Wright simon@pushface.org December 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From the software point of view, note that on Linux (which has a case-sensitive file system) you should use lower case for Ada source file names, so that, for example, Alices_Digital_Signature.ads becomes alices_digital_signature.ads. From the practical point of view, I think that the size of the encrypted files will be a serious issue. With the current code, they come out *more* *than* *30* *times* the size of the original, so that the encrypted SureCrypt85610.zip comes out at about 870 megabytes. Even if you output the encrypted data in binary the multiplier will be 12 (each byte of the original is encrypted as 3 integers). [1] https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a84i0jb8jv48nev/Q143ubNUWC

Thanks for that Simon.

I am the first to admit that this cryptography has very high ciphertext expansion but I cannot understand it being 870 Megabytes for the example you gave. I have no doubt you are right.

The salient thing for me is in the crypto strength - this is theoretically unbreakable <= in the hands of the right people it has potential.

This is a great contribution - I salute you.

I think it is beyond me with my resources to do anything more - I have a cavalier attitude to cost and have always maintained that its security at any cost.

Most of what you say is technically beyond my ken also but its is very encouraging that you have not decided to condemn it out of hand as a lost cause like for instance the current complexity-theoretic crypto that is headed for the scrap heap.

Quite reamarkable that there was so much portability about the programs in such diverse environments.

Austin