It appears to me that PGP encryption et al is really 1940's technology, albeit fancied up by 1990's computers. Why use keys and cyphers when all you should have to do is maximize the randomization of bits in a script? Big computers should not be able to de-randomize such encoding, since the permutations/combinations would be astronomical after just a half-dozen or so random number initializations, as well as the fact that the bits are relatively undifferentiated (just ones and zeros) and are not maintained with their original bytes, words, paragraphs, or pages? DALE THORN ON CRYPTOGRAPHY: ABSTRACT 23 August 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Algorithm: Select bit-groups of random length from the file until the file is completely processed. Shuffle the bits in each group randomly and save each group back to the file. Repeat if needed using different key-strings for each successive encryption, for increased security. "If a high-speed computer could perform 'a trillion processor ops per second', and it took just one millionth of a second to 'crack' my test file on such a machine (i.e., a million ops), it would still require 10^36 ops to 'crack' 6 consecutive encodings, which translates to 10^24 seconds, or 3 x 10^16 years." "Due to the nature of compounded bit-shuffling, no algorithm ever developed or proposed could 'crack' multi-pass encoding with a single decryption pass. In plain English, if a file were encoded six times (in six passes, with six different password phrases), you'd have to decode all six passes before you would know whether even the first decryption pass was successful or not." "Since each byte in the encrypted file may contain bits from other 'original' bytes, multi-pass encoding moves you rapidly in the direction of true-random distribution of the source bits (note the 'Intelligent User' comment below)." "My desktop computer (a 90 mhz Pentium) can encrypt a 12 kb file in less than one second (in a single pass) using 'C', and takes less than two seconds with the PDQ version of Basic I use, hence, the six passes that I normally perform on such a file require nine seconds or less total computer time." "One of the difficulties in breaking this type of encryption (other than the numerical time factors) is the fact that you might have to deal with several unknown random number generators from different compiled executable programs. Add to this another factor, the 'Intelligent User' who adds their own tweaks to the source code. The tweak is added, the program is compiled, the file(s) are encrypted, and then the modified source code is destroyed along with the executable file. This type of modification, together with the fact that the individual bits in the encrypted text file are scattered very effectively in normal encoding, yields the ultimate level of security for concerned persons." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE FOR ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We're going to encrypt the following 25-character text string: when_it_rains_it's_a_bath The unencrypted string (in bit form, least significant bit at left) is: 11101110000101101010011001110110111110101001011000 10111011111010010011101000011010010110011101101100 11101111101010010110001011101110010011001110111110 10100001101111101001000110100001100010111000010110 We now generate 200 random numbers, and sort them in ascending order. The following list represents the original physical positions of the numbers, and we move the bits as shown above from these positions in the 25-byte text string to bit positions 0, 1, 2, etc. (move bit #4 to the first position, move bit #179 to the second position, etc.). 4 179 67 127 46 76 136 74 92 54 88 121 134 192 77 36 47 26 45 144 111 141 150 58 110 12 94 13 161 177 18 155 153 175 91 95 86 195 79 20 23 172 51 96 126 93 64 3 125 81 166 131 71 63 170 78 140 87 107 147 15 35 10 168 33 149 189 118 42 90 6 85 120 68 102 173 103 104 138 83 53 43 182 139 29 60 146 184 176 114 123 44 191 56 70 185 73 137 148 199 196 27 65 62 37 181 28 0 106 158 100 1 190 2 25 194 8 30 174 101 105 135 162 61 75 32 115 142 14 49 186 50 183 21 119 52 69 99 11 89 72 34 98 188 82 17 163 9 167 109 113 171 38 157 84 5 59 178 22 57 151 122 160 130 39 116 133 156 164 66 159 40 124 193 108 180 152 41 97 7 197 145 132 169 55 16 24 165 198 112 19 129 187 31 154 48 80 128 117 143 The text string (in bit form) following the first encryption is now: 10001010010000110111011110111010001011000001110010 10000110110100101101110111010111101110100001100110 01110101111111100111101001111011010110111101001000 00110110110111001010011010101011010100110100001110 At this point, it's obvious (with a sufficient length of text to analyze) that we could restore the original text using an algorithm equivalent to the pseudo- random number generator we used above. However, we're going to encrypt again: Generate another 200 random numbers and sort them in ascending order. The following list represents the original physical positions of the numbers, so move the bits the same way we moved them above (move bit #41 to the first position, move bit #9 to the second position, etc.). 41 9 38 86 67 108 8 99 157 69 91 6 15 150 28 192 56 98 54 72 145 19 48 64 183 147 102 7 138 177 167 29 164 176 97 82 83 168 181 95 185 22 21 30 93 182 109 39 197 14 96 40 84 137 155 143 16 126 58 33 149 144 140 159 88 189 4 190 153 90 68 114 129 45 53 112 119 125 127 124 20 141 142 77 188 115 175 105 60 194 106 80 31 49 51 116 1 113 151 94 2 199 161 146 71 101 62 66 154 166 3 128 5 118 10 61 110 165 43 122 42 47 184 46 133 85 74 173 36 44 111 171 89 35 163 136 162 198 17 23 78 152 121 37 12 186 55 169 103 24 34 26 178 87 81 123 132 195 65 11 174 191 193 172 18 25 196 107 120 187 27 100 180 134 59 135 179 57 148 0 63 13 158 130 70 131 117 139 32 104 92 170 50 76 73 79 75 160 52 156 The text string (in bit form) following the second encryption is now: 01011100010110101100011110101000011101101111101011 00101101100011111010010101111001011001000100000101 00111101010101011011000011101111001111110101001011 11101000001101101110101011000100111111000010111001 Now that we've doubly-encrypted the text string, try to describe an algorithm that will restore the original string in a single decryption step, i.e., move directly from the last-encoded text to the original text without the need for an intermediate decryption step. Text parsers and lexical analyzers won't do you any good in intermediate steps as described above, since all intermediate encodings will be garbage text (not only will the bits in each character be scrambled, but bits will be scrambled across characters, words, and paragraphs as well. Multi-step decryption could be facilitated where text can be analyzed a few characters or words at a time, assuming the analysis engine could determine from where to get the appropriate bits when processing a large text stream. In the above examples of bit-level encryption, the individual bits migrate to various places in the text string rather than remain within each set of eight bits which DOS arbitrarily designates as character bytes. Therefore, the ONLY tenable (but not necessarily viable) methods for decoding such text are: 1. Try rearranging the bits randomly. The disadvantages are: a. You could come up with "Mary had a little lamb...", etc., given that the bits are minimally differentiated (just ones and zeros). b. Decryption would require eons of time (an exponential factor of the number of bits processed, divided by the cycle time of the computer). 2. Decrypt the text one step at a time, in the reverse order of the encryption steps. The disadvantages are: a. You can't be sure you've decrypted any step correctly until decryption is completed (until all steps are performed and the text is readable). b. Passwords/phrases, algorithms, code routines, and even whole programs might change from step to step, thereby invalidating any 'single-pass' decryption scheme that's likely to be proposed.
Khm, am I being trolled? The purpose of encryption is to make decryption easy for designated parties and hard for all others. The proposed algorithm simply destroys the original text that you had. How you plan to decrypt your encrypted messages? It is not an encryption method, it is "data destruction" method. igor Dale Thorn wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5E91F122B2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It appears to me that PGP encryption et al is really 1940's technology, albeit fancied up by 1990's computers. Why use keys and cyphers when all you should have to do is maximize the randomization of bits in a script? Big computers should not be able to de-randomize such encoding, since the permutations/combinations would be astronomical after just a half-dozen or so random number initializations, as well as the fact that the bits are relatively undifferentiated (just ones and zeros) and are not maintained with their original bytes, words, paragraphs, or pages?
--------------5E91F122B2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="readme.1st"
DALE THORN ON CRYPTOGRAPHY: ABSTRACT 23 August 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algorithm: Select bit-groups of random length from the file until the file is completely processed. Shuffle the bits in each group randomly and save each group back to the file. Repeat if needed using different key-strings for each successive encryption, for increased security.
"If a high-speed computer could perform 'a trillion processor ops per second', and it took just one millionth of a second to 'crack' my test file on such a machine (i.e., a million ops), it would still require 10^36 ops to 'crack' 6 consecutive encodings, which translates to 10^24 seconds, or 3 x 10^16 years."
"Due to the nature of compounded bit-shuffling, no algorithm ever developed or proposed could 'crack' multi-pass encoding with a single decryption pass. In plain English, if a file were encoded six times (in six passes, with six different password phrases), you'd have to decode all six passes before you would know whether even the first decryption pass was successful or not."
"Since each byte in the encrypted file may contain bits from other 'original' bytes, multi-pass encoding moves you rapidly in the direction of true-random distribution of the source bits (note the 'Intelligent User' comment below)."
"My desktop computer (a 90 mhz Pentium) can encrypt a 12 kb file in less than one second (in a single pass) using 'C', and takes less than two seconds with the PDQ version of Basic I use, hence, the six passes that I normally perform on such a file require nine seconds or less total computer time."
"One of the difficulties in breaking this type of encryption (other than the numerical time factors) is the fact that you might have to deal with several unknown random number generators from different compiled executable programs. Add to this another factor, the 'Intelligent User' who adds their own tweaks to the source code. The tweak is added, the program is compiled, the file(s) are encrypted, and then the modified source code is destroyed along with the executable file. This type of modification, together with the fact that the individual bits in the encrypted text file are scattered very effectively in normal encoding, yields the ultimate level of security for concerned persons."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE FOR ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're going to encrypt the following 25-character text string:
when_it_rains_it's_a_bath
The unencrypted string (in bit form, least significant bit at left) is:
11101110000101101010011001110110111110101001011000 10111011111010010011101000011010010110011101101100 11101111101010010110001011101110010011001110111110 10100001101111101001000110100001100010111000010110
We now generate 200 random numbers, and sort them in ascending order. The following list represents the original physical positions of the numbers, and we move the bits as shown above from these positions in the 25-byte text string to bit positions 0, 1, 2, etc. (move bit #4 to the first position, move bit #179 to the second position, etc.).
4 179 67 127 46 76 136 74 92 54 88 121 134 192 77 36 47 26 45 144 111 141 150 58 110 12 94 13 161 177 18 155 153 175 91 95 86 195 79 20 23 172 51 96 126 93 64 3 125 81 166 131 71 63 170 78 140 87 107 147 15 35 10 168 33 149 189 118 42 90 6 85 120 68 102 173 103 104 138 83 53 43 182 139 29 60 146 184 176 114 123 44 191 56 70 185 73 137 148 199 196 27 65 62 37 181 28 0 106 158 100 1 190 2 25 194 8 30 174 101 105 135 162 61 75 32 115 142 14 49 186 50 183 21 119 52 69 99 11 89 72 34 98 188 82 17 163 9 167 109 113 171 38 157 84 5 59 178 22 57 151 122 160 130 39 116 133 156 164 66 159 40 124 193 108 180 152 41 97 7 197 145 132 169 55 16 24 165 198 112 19 129 187 31 154 48 80 128 117 143
The text string (in bit form) following the first encryption is now:
10001010010000110111011110111010001011000001110010 10000110110100101101110111010111101110100001100110 01110101111111100111101001111011010110111101001000 00110110110111001010011010101011010100110100001110
At this point, it's obvious (with a sufficient length of text to analyze) that we could restore the original text using an algorithm equivalent to the pseudo- random number generator we used above. However, we're going to encrypt again:
Generate another 200 random numbers and sort them in ascending order. The following list represents the original physical positions of the numbers, so move the bits the same way we moved them above (move bit #41 to the first position, move bit #9 to the second position, etc.).
41 9 38 86 67 108 8 99 157 69 91 6 15 150 28 192 56 98 54 72 145 19 48 64 183 147 102 7 138 177 167 29 164 176 97 82 83 168 181 95 185 22 21 30 93 182 109 39 197 14 96 40 84 137 155 143 16 126 58 33 149 144 140 159 88 189 4 190 153 90 68 114 129 45 53 112 119 125 127 124 20 141 142 77 188 115 175 105 60 194 106 80 31 49 51 116 1 113 151 94 2 199 161 146 71 101 62 66 154 166 3 128 5 118 10 61 110 165 43 122 42 47 184 46 133 85 74 173 36 44 111 171 89 35 163 136 162 198 17 23 78 152 121 37 12 186 55 169 103 24 34 26 178 87 81 123 132 195 65 11 174 191 193 172 18 25 196 107 120 187 27 100 180 134 59 135 179 57 148 0 63 13 158 130 70 131 117 139 32 104 92 170 50 76 73 79 75 160 52 156
The text string (in bit form) following the second encryption is now:
01011100010110101100011110101000011101101111101011 00101101100011111010010101111001011001000100000101 00111101010101011011000011101111001111110101001011 11101000001101101110101011000100111111000010111001
Now that we've doubly-encrypted the text string, try to describe an algorithm that will restore the original string in a single decryption step, i.e., move directly from the last-encoded text to the original text without the need for an intermediate decryption step.
Text parsers and lexical analyzers won't do you any good in intermediate steps as described above, since all intermediate encodings will be garbage text (not only will the bits in each character be scrambled, but bits will be scrambled across characters, words, and paragraphs as well.
Multi-step decryption could be facilitated where text can be analyzed a few characters or words at a time, assuming the analysis engine could determine from where to get the appropriate bits when processing a large text stream.
In the above examples of bit-level encryption, the individual bits migrate to various places in the text string rather than remain within each set of eight bits which DOS arbitrarily designates as character bytes. Therefore, the ONLY tenable (but not necessarily viable) methods for decoding such text are:
1. Try rearranging the bits randomly. The disadvantages are:
a. You could come up with "Mary had a little lamb...", etc., given that the bits are minimally differentiated (just ones and zeros).
b. Decryption would require eons of time (an exponential factor of the number of bits processed, divided by the cycle time of the computer).
2. Decrypt the text one step at a time, in the reverse order of the encryption steps. The disadvantages are:
a. You can't be sure you've decrypted any step correctly until decryption is completed (until all steps are performed and the text is readable).
b. Passwords/phrases, algorithms, code routines, and even whole programs might change from step to step, thereby invalidating any 'single-pass' decryption scheme that's likely to be proposed.
--------------5E91F122B2E--
- Igor.
Dale Thorn wrote:
It appears to me that PGP encryption et al is really 1940's technology, albeit fancied up by 1990's computers. Why use keys and cyphers when all you should have to do is maximize the randomization of bits in a [...] Algorithm: Select bit-groups of random length from the file until the file is completely processed. Shuffle the bits in each group randomly and save each group back to the file. Repeat if needed using different key-strings for each successive encryption, for increased security.
Very nice. There are just two little issues: a) How do you generate the random bytes? b) How do you transmit them to the other side, without having a secure channel? In 1940, you needed airplanes to solve b), now you can use PGP (or any other combined strong asymmetric & symmetric crypto) to solve b) and partially even a), saving you a lot of fuel ;-) BTW: In my opinion, your 'randomization of bits' corresponds to cyphers, and the way you randomize them corresponds to 'keys'. My 0.2 cents worth. Gec
In message <3226ADC6.6C87@gte.net>, Dale Thorn writes:
It appears to me that PGP encryption et al is really 1940's technology, albeit fancied up by 1990's computers.
1940s cyphers all had a secret key. Said key had to be forwarded to the recipient, usually via a courier. PGP doesn't need this. It is a hybrid system using IDEA to encrypt the message with a random session key and RSA to encrypt the session key. It also offers digital signatures, something 1940s cyphers didn't. Your proposal, however, looks as if it is impossible for the recipient to decrypt the message! Derek Bell
participants (4)
-
Dale Thorn -
Derek Bell -
Germano Caronni -
ichudov＠algebra.com