this viewpoint would appear validated within a certain limited framwork of observation, whereas different 'physics' could apply beyond its pov... On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote: NSA Technical Journal published "The Unbreakable Cipher" in Spring 1961.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/The_Unbreakable_Cipher.p...
Excerpts:
[Quote]
For each cipher system there is an upper bound to the amount of traffic it can protect against cryptanalytic attack.
perhaps this is mathematically proven or a truism (cannot be falsified) though it would seem this is a statement based on certain existing approaches, potentially. or methods or equations that may work in particular domains- yet perhaps not all, if somehow dynamics changed from ordered to chaotic systems, noise instead of signals the comparison could be to [nature] itself as a mysterious code and what is accessible and known, within particular limited views and understanding, versus all that exists, perceived or hidden the threshold that is beyond observation may not appear in traffic analysis if it is not accounted for in a given structuring of data or comprehendable. there may be more to it that existing models or embodied awareness, as with vision and other animals eyes and frequencies, as this relates to territory and interfunctionality, say UV and insects as it relates to pollination, humans cannot see directly yet cameras can begin to, yet what if like Flatland there are vast amounts of higher dimensionality near & far away or adjacent and invisible that are not found in existing equations else cannot be computed in the frameworks, ideological science & metaphysics one example, Isaac Newton the Alchemist the requirement may be that the cipher needs to be serial or linear to satisfy the given viewpoint, versus non-linear
What is "cryptanalytic attack"? It is a process applied to cipher text in order to extract information, especially information contained in the messages and intended to be kept secret.
guessing- perhaps such "cryptanalytic correlation" is based on assumption about order within defined and controlled systems generated by algorithms in a particular way- and thus correlation leads to a cause, verification/validation of a 'known rationalization' or meaningful structure that can be deciphered out of the chaos assumption of a correct and single answer, removed of ambiguity vs. nonlinear, many potential answers, more labyrinth, cipher as treasure hunt leading into multiple mazes, linked or parallel yet arbitrary puzzles, and Rube Goldberg contraptions which could alter the context itself, change code, via attempts to access it
If some of the information is gotten by other means and this results in more being extracted from the cipher, this is (at least partially) a successful attack.
linearly so, that seems likely in that order would be revealed in what might be called the equationspace, whatever context or 'universe' the approaches define, yet which may be finite and bounded, and thus lack other existing dimensionality nonlinear, more (autogenerated) information does not inherently lead to a single "correct" ordering or perspective, it could be a false pov or trap yet fulfill criteria of rationalization into some known equation ("yes- here is the 'real' encrypted message"') in the sense that a [sign] references itself for proof, versus another event, thus a false a=a resolving an equation could be a spoof and lead away from the actual temporary path the secret data could feasibly be infront of an observer who is limited in their view and framework and thus cannot see it due to snap-to-fit equation mentality, conceptually limited, perceptually, if not out if not their depth philosophically as the idea itself that generates the code may be unthinkable or unimaginable in a less-accurate framework or model thus, much public crypto could function as [signage] that is equated with secrets: (the hidden data is here!), and in this way could be two-dimensional as in Flatland POVs, that cannot understand higher dimensionality beyond its physical limits of perception- and thus brain functioning, sensory capacity, natural networking (esp,astral, remote viewing) may differ observer to observer as consciousness shared and unshared- planes of existence and operation so what if nonlinear cipher systems or multilinear do not have these same 2D properties and instead invert the principles involved, such that finding structure or order is not inherently good, nor 'answers' or resolution as it does not prove anything, if not knowing the context or frame for data, one answer over another in another view
If certain phrases can be recognized when they are present, this is successful cryptanalysis.
not if multiple bit set, or bit strings. what is recognizable as pattern may exist as noise and what appears noise may be the signal, pseudo-truth pattern matching leads further & further into falsity
If a priori probabilities on possible contents are altered by examination of the cipher, this is cryptanalytic progress.
or, a protected boundary or ruse that further encrypts into other frameworks upon inspection, correlation, interference thus Schrodinger paradox and observation, though to include quantum correlation changes the context (other physics) and 'the cat' could be entangled with another cat before being put in box and thus its state could indicate dead/alive cat, etc. so what if non-linear ciphers were entangled and yet this functioned in a realm of arbitrary keys or resonant key sets that suddenly tune in or out of connectivity within a context, versus must be hardcoded into it as static unchanging data
If in making trial decipherments it is possible to pick out the correct one then cryptanalysis is successful. ...
not true for nonlinear bit sets as they could auto-expand into universe upon universe of data correlations, bounded infinities or unbounded finite realms, whereas the serial approach appears much more of a bounded finite realm exponential meaning for set combinations as equations that open into vast interior realms of potential scrambled data- anything cold be ordering the interior, recognizable or not-- N-equations, singularly or stacked, equations never before shared- that level of obscurity- anything.
Another example is that of Mr. Kahn, one-time key. Here the limit is quite clear; it is the amount of key on hand. The key arrives in finite "messages," so there is only a finite amount on hand at anyone time, and this limits the amount of traffic which can be sent securely. Of course another shipment of key raises this bound, but technically another cipher system is now in effect, for by my definition a cipher system is a message. A sequence of messages is a sequence of cipher systems, related perhaps, but not the same. ...
not sure i understand this in its practice or application, though what if a key cannot be differentiated from the cryptogram or is somehow not separated or structurally defined in existing rules for hardware/software crypto. for instance, what if entanglement unlocks interpretation via perception or alters some context. what if a device is so enigmatic it could contain an upper boundary of keyspace and cipherspace and equationspace such that it can be reused indefinitely or many times without figuring out its solution because it increasingly moves to 'many' versus a single solution, and may not structurally relate to other previous uses/exchange or protocols (in this way the person as observer and randomness) what if traffic analysis is 2D in an N-dimensional framework and thus many keys and similar cipherspace is an attribute and at some tipping point or threshold a computational or conceptual limit is reached, which is defined by a limited rationalization or this is seeded by accurate and-or false data to false correlate and entangle systems, virtual and real, to exploit via minotaurs [Answer to the question:] "Does there exist an unbreakable cipher"
would be this, "Every cipher is breakable, given enough traffic, and every cipher is unbreakable, if the traffic volume is restricted enough."
[End quote]
this could be a question of observation and the existing boundary. an omniscient observer could likely know anything encrypted just by tapping optic nerve or brain, pre-encryption. yet if not truly or fully accurate in modeling, could make presumptions and limit this power of interpretation to a smaller framework than what actually exists (pT vs. T) and thus that limit may equate what is believed observed with absolute truth (pT=pT as TRUTH), and thus the hidden communications or cipher system may exist in that gap or realm of error- to begin with, as security that is based within accurate observance/sharing of truth, even while in a more finite state, than a falsely omniscient observer who relies on error for POV (skew/distortion/warping) and thus their logical reasoning may establish the boundary which a person of less capacity for all-pervasive oversight may still communicate beyond via channels of unobserved or unrecognized truth, validated in 1=1 or A=A or T=T views grounded in shared empirical framework, outside perception or understanding of the tyrant. the neuro-signaling could be broken, the encryption broken in algorithmic code, the traffic correlated- and yet if these are not accurately interpreted or cannot be, or do not or cannot accurately correlate to the reality, then reading of the cipher -- that which is broken -- could be reading of [the signs] associated with the cipher in a given particular rationalization or ideological view that can still be incorrect and data exchange could occur outside of this viewpoint; thus the phrenological aspect of inaccurate modeling in that it could be limited or bounded to finite dimensionality whereas the actual cipher could exist outside of that like neuroscience trying to determine what ideas are by placing them on a neural map, versus the concepts as circuits, constellations, related to this data, in truth truth is the unbreakable cipher there is no greater security lies are full of flaws and errors by comparison, self-defeating how effective is secret intel if it is blanketing the news cycle as endless global megastorm, global secrecy meltdown
Is this conclusion still valid? If so, what could be done to restrict traffic volume to assure unbreakablility? And how to sufficiently test that. Presuming that NSA and cohorts have investigated this effect.
it could be ideological-- that the 'secret' is created and held within a given domain versus existing outside of it as information and in a state of nature or other pre-existing data and frames as if the role of security is to break things so they can be secure, a methodology that ultimately undermines development, reflected in planned obsolence as self-destruction, cannibalization of the state what if security meant protecting truth, and secrecy dealing with thresholds and boundaries; what if the protocols and assumptions and methodologies are conceptually flawed, wrong, in error, and their implementation and sustenance is the lifeblood of tyranny, in that maldevelopment is required as a result of wrong-ideas and wrong-thinking, standardized, institutionalized, copied, networked, and then becoming security state religion while heretics are pursued as citizen terrorists, givers of feedback in such a doomsday, truth is the enemy, so that would mean the inner realm of the secrecy and security and privacy realm is to protect lies and liars and deceivers, the core of the falsity ☆