The video is too tiny to see on iPhone 4s. People generally don't want video for this kind of stuff, a text description of what you're doing would be much better.
- right, it expands by half but i believe it's just as secure as the one-time pad [this is what i want to verify]
This is the easiest bit to critique / attack.
For OTP to work the pad needs to be properly random; the pad needs to be bigger than the plain text.
Expanding something else probably stops it being properly random.
People get hung up on OTP because PROVABLY SECURE. They are secure, but they're also cumbersome to use.
- my bad, the font size in the editor is originally small. will try to fix that.
- problem is that the algorithm itself is what makes the system strong. once revealed in a white paper, the whole thing is useless. what do you recommend to write in a text description for this case?
- it's an imitation of OTP mechanism but has nothing to do with how OTP is conventionally implemented.
problem is that the algorithm itself is what makes the system strong. once revealed in a white paper, the whole thing is useless
This is a deal-breaker. Your system is not strong if you rely on other people not knowing how it works. Nobody will use it because you can't convince them it's worth anything, you can't distribute it in code. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but again this is literally 19th century stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle .
No problem. I hope I don't sound too negative. It can be fun to play around with ideas like this, and trying to see if you can crack your own systems. But there is a huge gulf between "this is fun and I'm learning something" and "I've discovered/built something totally new that other people will want to use", and if you aren't familiar with the current state of the art you aren't even speaking the same language.
Comments
The video is too tiny to see on iPhone 4s. People generally don't want video for this kind of stuff, a text description of what you're doing would be much better.
This is the easiest bit to critique / attack.
For OTP to work the pad needs to be properly random; the pad needs to be bigger than the plain text.
Expanding something else probably stops it being properly random.
People get hung up on OTP because PROVABLY SECURE. They are secure, but they're also cumbersome to use.
Dan, thanks for the feedback.
- my bad, the font size in the editor is originally small. will try to fix that.
- problem is that the algorithm itself is what makes the system strong. once revealed in a white paper, the whole thing is useless. what do you recommend to write in a text description for this case?
- it's an imitation of OTP mechanism but has nothing to do with how OTP is conventionally implemented.
This is a deal-breaker. Your system is not strong if you rely on other people not knowing how it works. Nobody will use it because you can't convince them it's worth anything, you can't distribute it in code. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but again this is literally 19th century stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle .
i agree. now this is something to get busy with.
thanks a lot for taking the time to discuss it.
No problem. I hope I don't sound too negative. It can be fun to play around with ideas like this, and trying to see if you can crack your own systems. But there is a huge gulf between "this is fun and I'm learning something" and "I've discovered/built something totally new that other people will want to use", and if you aren't familiar with the current state of the art you aren't even speaking the same language.
That's called a Viginere cipher and people stopped using it in the 19th century.
i don't think it's related to Viginere. here's an example of repeated text that is not repeated when encrypted: http://i.imgur.com/i4XLLEm.png