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.pdf

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
☆