Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: || in other words; the password would not be: || || [mordify][sunflower-icon][fort%20lauderdale][3.124]

the problem is, that in your scenario entropy would still be limited to this string. everything else is a reproducible computation.

the concept of entropy as if a metaphysical device has me confused in most cases. given that i do not have requisite skills or understanding of technical implementations, there is a tremendous gap between how such processes actually function as structures, what the exact device interactions are. and thus my naive observations occur in a realm of mostly unanswered questions and basic assumptions though it seems also that what is known by others resolves what are probably fundamental misunderstandings on my part, due to not knowing how these things actually work. though in questioning without knowing, perhaps scenarios can be retested and solidified in their correctness and robustness, though for me it remains opaque and little understood and beyond my capacity in most all crypto descriptions. my relation with 'entropy' as a concept was from reading and thinking about cybernetics (N.Weiner) and also understanding it as a concept in nature. Guy Murchie, author of excellent books that conceptualize nature, was one of these contexts for basic awareness and a sense of understanding that appears to lose relevance in a crypto context and becomes perhaps more mysterious than it actually is. The Seven Mysteries of Life: An Exploration in Science & Philosophy By Guy Murchie Google book quotes on entropy and concept of 'negentropy' (pp.444) http://books.google.com/books?id=Cq0AqNmeaHYC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=guy+murchie+entropy&source=bl&ots=BJXI4K6UKS&sig=F0mJtSdET8NVUfsD0563vgx9ixU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M6-DUtiKHNOlkQeY-4CoCw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=guy%20murchie%20entropy&f=false // here is another enigmatic quote found perhaps of relevance... "What's in a name? In the case of Shannon's measure the naming was not accidental. In 1961 one of us (Tribus) asked Shannon what he had thought about when he had finally confirmed his famous measure. Shannon replied: "My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.' " -- M. Tribus and E. C. McIrvine, Energy and Information, Sci. Am., 225, 3, 179-188, September, 1971. from: http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/quotes.html i have some understanding of the concept of systems and of equilibrium between them, given their dynamic connected or disconnected relations. that there is influence (as in the thermodynamic model) where one system effects another, or both eachother perhaps, within particular dimensions or constraints. maybe this even goes into the observer-observation scenario, such that any interaction is a potential influence, though perhaps this goes both-ways, not just one-way, in terms of "information". it seems important how "information" is conceptualized likewise, if it is outside of the matter/energy model or mapped onto/into it, especially given a mathematical and computational context. what if, for instance, this magic word entropy was functioning on another 'analog' level of informational processing, such that equations broken down into bits instead could be worked out as an energy flow, and thereby crunching numbers was instead occurring in another domain (say, in mathematics involving 'zero' that models the world differently), and in this way calculations that appear highly complex could instead be trivial if worked out as an energetic relation. not to propose this is what is occurring, yet in its *magic* the entropic value seems to conjure such calcubility as a threshold condition, that defines what can be believed legitimately secure, information-wise, versus insecure by known limits that are exploitable. what these limits are or how this functions is beyond me, yet entropy is the magic concept that appears to allow all sorts of calculation to occur in the realm of 'feasible attacks' against 'known weaknesses' due to information that can be computed, or leaves loose strings that will allow its security to be unraveled. what this is, why and howso, as mentioned is unknown to me, and it sounds like many others who are also not aware of or initiated into the mysterious of crypto as a technical computational enterprise, yet i still wonder to what extent assumptions are involved that could go unchecked and perhaps need to be requestioned, considered again or allow open questioning of what could become dogma otherwise, and a basis for false security or false views or inaccurate concepts, structuralized. believed secure or the basis for security yet not thoroughly evaluated in the terms it exists. such as, what if the model for "information" in its relation to energy and matter. this has everything to do with a concept like entropy- so what if the standard view on this. is information detached from physical reality, is it separated from electrons that 'represent' it when encoded in binary or carry the forms of encryption as a signal layer. how might the entanglement of information with physical, energy bits in some way change the ~metaphysics of crypto, such that perhaps brute-force calculations by massively parallel supercomputers may not be required if entropy were calculated otherwise, as energy flows or could be evaluated say by thermal imaging or other techniques or approaches, beyond parsing bits and guessing at equations and mathematical structures. in other words: what if the cosmology and cosmography that is the foundation for cryptographic beliefs, and how does the structure and story of the world relate to the concept of entropy. for instance, if the view of crypto has developed in a non-electromagnetic understanding and the basis for evaluation of equations and encryption - in terms of entropy - references thermodynamics yet does not include 'the electromagnetic component' of "information", computer processing (electrons, photons, charge), and other variables, then perhaps the use of entropy is a distortion or malmodeling of events, or an EXPLOIT itself, due to inaccuracies or false views or relations establishing a gap between what exists and how it is mediated by observers, those involved in creating and breaking crypto, etc. so if there is a non-electromagnetic view of information as the /context/ for crypto, a view of [entropy] can be limited or bounded to a false threshold or misleading parameters, while other effects could exist and be exploited by other 'non-documented' physics, in particular as information relates to energy, and how mathematics could be interacted with in other forms, such as energy flows versus in terms of signage and numbers. and algorithm or encryption equation perhaps breakable in other patterning, potentially, if knowing the secrets that could remain hidden as part of its mystery or esoteric practice. so what if cryptography involves an 'energy calculation' in place of an 'information calculation', and this could occur at the level of material stuff or within the nature of electronics, prior to or underneath the encoding scheme, and divulge patterns or structures likewise via these other technical means. perhaps corollary to neuroscience trying to reverse-engineer consciousness via 'reading the brain', and that a gap could exist between what patterns are accessible and how they are interpreted, in what frameworks, etc. such that the potential for phrenology is high at the outset, though could be reduced through successive attempts and investigations, building up a model and more accurate description yet this could still remain bounded, held within a particular set of parameters, distant from what is sought. contrary to this, from the outside-in approach, an inside-out version, knowing materiality and energetic patterns prior to its encoding could potentially help unravel a simple constructed system, even if knotted and bunched and folded together by various equations, wherein an energy analysis within this condition could unknot, unbunch, unfold the various sequences in terms of their entangled arrangement, perhaps moving from an artificial decoherence back into a natural coherence, prior to encoding, as energy flows. (consider the maypole as a model for computation, where any interleaving patterns of equation could be unwoven by, say, entanglement with hierarchical structuring of fundamental forces beyond the electron, as this relates to information encoding and thus organization/disorganization and entropy, whereby it is through an energy state that such unraveling could occur versus by manipulating unknowns of signage) while perhaps impossible to imagine in the framework of MIPs and bytes - as information - in terms of electrons as carries and an infrastructural conduit with its own nature, prior to encoding with signal, it is not unimaginable or inconceivable that 'energy as the foundation for this secondary layer of information' would also map into an expanded, electromagnetic context for entropy, as systems interrelate, intermix. is it likely? i have no idea. does it reference in some way the mysteriousness of entropy as a magic word? to me, yes. thus fools like myself must wonder what kind of sorcery is involved in the secretive toolkits used, especially in a realm of quantum information, where entanglement could proceed any secondary flows of information, within its structure and context if so devised, yet remain unaccounted for, especially in terms of a mainstream view, which could be misinformation about the true nature in which this equipment and ideas of cryptography operate. thus basic communication could be delusional if trying to reason within a false or inaccurate rationalization, structural distortion presented as if fact, leading to nonsense, or further obfuscation by discussions outside the protected (insider) boundary. this much is understood and understandable. yet then what is the purpose of language or attempting to communicate about such things unless entropy itself is involved between inside/outside systems that require relation, yet must remain protected to have functional security. a portal or wormhole or whatever then potentially being constructed across or between worldviews, channeled through strange parameters that may remain unknown to the uninitiated and yet active, to some extent determining and requiring a particular process be observed to influence or limit known calculability or computation, inside a given threshold, that functions as protection or shield against chaos if not revealed hidden ordering, openings that could lead to exploits, given the conditions that exist as context for information, matter, energy that may not be summed up or solved just as a linear string in terms of its evaluation and instead something else, 'other' that remains undocumented or unaccounted for in the realm beyond, a wilderness territory. [machine 1] <===> [machine 2] this is a model of a password scenario as i imagine it. 'machine 1' would be a user and 'machine 2' would be the machine accessed, that receives a password. my assumption is that 'entropy' when referenced in terms of information could instead relate to any 'machine 1' that could interact with 'machine 2' to interrogate its structure... [machine N] <===> [machine 2] what seems to be an issue is that the password-verifying machine (2) could be overwhelmed by another machine that mimics 'machine 1', though sends millions or trillions of passwords, over a period of time. not being a programmer, hacker, cryptographer or otherwise, it is not understood how this situation is the default scenario, having such access granted, unless an exploit has already occurred or a security barrier has already been defeated, thus providing such unimpeded access. why is this the assumption, to have such access, in other words. why would 'machine 2' allow a false user to run endless password attempts and provide the processing power to do this. would it not make more sense to put the parsing of the 'machine 2' password on a limited or highly-constrained processing venue, such that password computation is happening in a few transistors at most, for the pattern match, than of peak processing. that is, why not use an integrated circuit or dumbed-down circuit for that gateway than allow massive resources for its evaluation, that can be exploited by an attacker. hell, why not use a few transistors arranged into logic gates that fail or blow fuses as a physical security measure, even. in terms of ~equilibrium it would appear to correspond to patterning within both machines, as to whether the pattern in 'machine 2' can be correctly matched by the user machine (1) or its mimic, 'machine N' which could generate this pattern via guesswork and sleuthing. [machine N] patterns <===> patterns [machine 2] and perhaps it is a numbers game, if there are 10 trillion patterns accessible to the false or deceptive user in 'machine N' that are run against the less ~complex structuring of 'machine 2' holding secrets, then perhaps via some mysterious law of averages (if entropy) eventually equilibrium will flip the odds in favor of the attack (N) revealing the hidden order, the structure of the password, given time.... though this would depend on what the parameters of the password are. 'length' of a highly constrained character set could lead to 512 bits (naive variable) that retains a simple patterning, easy to compute or calculate in these terms, say especially if it is binary or bounded and these boundaries are known. whereas 10 bits of unknown boundaries may remain unsolvable, though given enough time, could potentially be resolved (the 'age of universe' conceit, etc). [machine N] patterns == (time) ==> patterns [machine 2] so in some approximated sense, modeling of a brute force attack on a machine for cracking passwords appears to the initiated and unknowing, such as myself, to involve: a) access to make the attack, b) more patterns or complexity than the machine attacked, c) time to match the pattern. and that this in some way relates to 'entropy' yet in the above scenario, notice the one-wayness of the situation, as if 'machine 2' is only dumb and allows this attack to occur within its unprotected boundary versus, say, reducing computational resources to not allow high-volume processing for password input, or likewise, reverses the entropy situation and gains 'information' from the attacker by providing a spoof or false-positive password to reroute the attack into a sandbox and a false-interior-perspective that can become a countermeasure for getting inside the attacking machine via this 'information balancing'... [machine N] <=== [machine 2] such that: (machine N (machine 2)) <===> (machine 2 (machine N)) in this scenario the real attack could be 'machine 2' that via a fake pattern match, draws in the attacker yet this allows the machine to gain internal access within that framework, and to become part of its information ecosystem, while what is perceived or related to could be false data: here, machine 2 prime or 2', that then is the actual exploit, via a form of reverse-engineering or counterattack... (machine N (machine 2)) <===> (machine 2' (machine N)) in other words, the actual 'machine 2' could gain surveillance capabilities over the attacking machine via allowing or making such equalization across boundaries easy instead of difficult, and thus establish an accurate information relation between machines N and 2, which could be exploited or used for attacks, while the attacking machine may gain access yet its relation could be a false perspective, inaccurate or a distortion, between machine 2' and itself, which exposes it to exploitation beyond what it grant, and potentially involving N-more patterns to interact with, or bury itself within, the attacking machine perhaps insecure likewise, and yet not aware of its vulnerabilities even given 'known' safeguards or disconnection from fingerprinting or whatnot. there could still be mystery involved, and the hashtables could be turned and yet it would not appear or be able to be evaluated this way, especially if beyond the boundary, or specific threshold, or given parameters that structure and provide the framework for these relations. something else could always be occurring and likely is, given the larger cosmic context for technology. in this way entropy as a security issue may exist within certain parameters while functioning in others that may be unaccounted for. say, allowing a system to be easily hacked to map or track the attackers, though also, allowing encryption scenarios to exist and appear secure in one context, yet within another they are insecure by design of different physics or information modeling. i.e. what appears closed may instead be open and vice-versa and thus back into auditing and accounting of the models involved, used to conceptualize the most basic relations, interactions, assumptions, ultimately: beliefs, hypotheses. how can any concept as a concept, such as [entropy], exist and not be empirically evaluated yet viewed in absolute terms as to its meaning, especially in a relativistic multiple, parallel interpretation where the 'information value' does not itself have coherence, situation to situation, context 1a to context b3000. perhaps it is a problem and function of language, than of cryptography as a concept and idea, its truth. in other words, biased computation and biased calculation could exist that presupposes or seeks to determine what this 'truth' of cryptography is, yet itself may not be accurate as an empirical perspective and instead may involve misinformation, warped or skewed beliefs that are the basis for exploits and attacks, due to the variances or gaps or incongruities introduced, involved, or relied upon as structure that is actually weakened or false by these unaccountable aspects, left ambiguous, necessarily so. it gets to the idea of corruption of perception and action based upon inaccurate modeling of existence, and how false views can be in service to another agenda, at another layer or in another level. what if the NSA and its prominence with code-breaking was actually reliant on a cheat-sheet approach where the parameters must be rigged for the calculations and computations to take place efficiently, and thus "security" is reliant upon the corruption of technology, rather than the robustness of codebreakers and high-creativity of mathematicians to challenge those constraints, which instead become normalized into a standardized approach, where previous approaches are incrementally extended as a deterministic rationalization of what cryptography is, and in this way codebreaking and making ability is dumbed-down such that encryption is designed which can be broken, within particular technological parameters and this extends into mathematics and computerized solutions geared towards a particular limited approach that allows this constrained ecosystem to function- versus challenging its parameters, forcing it to grow or even defeating its equipment. what if the NSA is corrupted from the inside out, what if it was made 'too easy' or a false perspective was established within the organization, and what exists is an NSA', and that is the context for crypto development and state' security and mass surveillance, and that is part of the ongoing campaign of deception, that events are occurring within a limited set of parameters when actually functioning outside and beyond these constraints, though "information" occurring in that domain itself appears unreal, as if of the wrong physics or detached from recognizable truth or whatever. thus, the threshold limit in this way can establish patterning (N) that is beyond the computability of what is within a protected boundary and this is established also within technology, within code, language, communication, consciousness, ideas and concepts themselves as interpreted and most importantly - grounded, though which appear to those without the circuitry, to be ungrounded, unreal, without value or truth, only distortion, lies, errors, ignorance, and so on. in this way, the true nature of crypto may not be revealed for the unititiated yet believed known and realized within tangible tools and techniques that map into a given world view, belief system, and shared perspective-- essentially representing, standing-in for the 'sign of security' even, while this could be ungrounded, insecure, in dimensions that are beyond perception, belief, knowing. and is this not a issue of entropy also, as people exist and interact in differing systems, the opening of minds to information itself that may compromise their own circuitry, its patterning, if dealing with higher ordering when instead viewed as lower, and that this is the basis for exploits and take-downs occurring also within a realm of metaphysical encryption, as ideas and concepts and people exist in pseudo and actual truth. perhaps the context is not inclusive enough to account for these real-world scenarios (even to extend into virtual and AI environments, circuitry of a continuum spanning the entirety of programming) here and there, in that what exists as it exists may be bounded in interpretation even while interrelations default to such scenarios, and as informational-energy flows, provide openings for pattern evaluation. in this way, the very interaction is the entropic exchange, truth inherent at every level, beyond particular interpretations, and again the claim that truth is the ultimate security, natural, artificial, and virtual. (this as it corresponds with empirical truth not just ungrounded belief, ergo, which tends towards mimicry) ☏ <---> ☎