Ciphers

Angleo,

I'm not sure what you mean by contradiction.

A cipher is either a message written to disguise its meaning - a code - or it is the key used to decode such a message. If you write a message using a specific cipher and send it to someone else who knows the cipher then that person will get exactly the message that you encoded.
 
Is any cipher known that once translated securely has no contradiction? (In pure form, or broken down?).
Click to expand...

Your talking about a perfect cipher right? If so I don,t think it exist. But if you want a good cipher I would not mess with buying security software that may have a back door best to write your own and test the heck out of it.
 
Well, taking the time to break a cipher and attain the key in it's entirety (the original key) I'm sure, depending on the intention of the creator - can be like chasing loops at times.
When I say "contradiction", whatever the cipher is, there's always "alphabet soup" left in it's place - the whole idea of the original transmission to be hidden (though with all of information there to be "transmuted").
There's two things that spring to mind when thinking of how Turing approached a situation in this regard:
A contradiction - when he broke the enigma code, he didn't search for the original key only (method), he created "his own key" and with his brillant mind tried on some lvls, to some degree create a skeleton key.
Patterns - even alphabet soup contains a certain "alphabet". Going beyond that rationale, any cipher is certainly not so. It's clear and plain as day "a pattern".
I believe once the contradiction and pattern is brought together we then create our own key of ascertaining next the original.
A good analogy would be if someone had a hotel room, "somehow" locked their key inside. To quickly resolve this situation the person would analyze the mechanics of the locking mechanism, find it's pattern, then per se uses a credit card to "jimmy" the door open and then obtain said key again.
(What that analogy/metaphor was trying to get across is the difference between "a" key, and "the" key. What constitutes a "lock"/"cipher" and what constitutes "a" key, or "the" key).
To go about finding a master key (method), correct me if I'm wrong, but three things are required;
-Language
-Pattern
-Contradiction

(IE; Even though reverse engineering has a direction, it must have many methods).

If it's true there is a pattern in everything in life, if observed long enough; There will always be a contradiction.
I believe this holds true for people as well as mechanics. It's just harder for most of us to relate that equation beyond human transmission/behaviour.

When I look at a cipher, it reminds me of human empathy. What we see on the outside is a security for what is held within. Both contain blantant patterns and contradictions.

To return to the original question, a truly unbreakable code would be one without contradiction. As I'm not an academic scholar, or have foundation in all of what's famously out there in some circles, I was wondering if there was something touted as such?
(I'm not saying "unbreakable", I'm saying a pattern "without contradiction").

p.s.
Feel free to correct, or point out any terminology flaws, I appreciate any knowledge in terms of effectively communicating amongst other things^^
 
Well, taking the time to break a cipher and attain the key in it's entirety (the original key) I'm sure, depending on the intention of the creator - can be like chasing loops at times.
When I say "contradiction", whatever the cipher is, there's always "alphabet soup" left in it's place - the whole idea of the original transmission to be hidden (though with all of information there to be "transmuted").
There's two things that spring to mind when thinking of how Turing approached a situation in this regard:
A contradiction - when he broke the enigma code, he didn't search for the original key only (method), he created "his own key" and with his brillant mind tried on some lvls, to some degree create a skeleton key.
Patterns - even alphabet soup contains a certain "alphabet". Going beyond that rationale, any cipher is certainly not so. It's clear and plain as day "a pattern".
I believe once the contradiction and pattern is brought together we then create our own key of ascertaining next the original.
A good analogy would be if someone had a hotel room, "somehow" locked their key inside. To quickly resolve this situation the person would analyze the mechanics of the locking mechanism, find it's pattern, then per se uses a credit card to "jimmy" the door open and then obtain said key again.
(What that analogy/metaphor was trying to get across is the difference between "a" key, and "the" key. What constitutes a "lock"/"cipher" and what constitutes "a" key, or "the" key).
To go about finding a master key (method), correct me if I'm wrong, but three things are required;
-Language
-Pattern
-Contradiction

(IE; Even though reverse engineering has a direction, it must have many methods).

If it's true there is a pattern in everything in life, if observed long enough; There will always be a contradiction.
I believe this holds true for people as well as mechanics. It's just harder for most of us to relate that equation beyond human transmission/behaviour.

When I look at a cipher, it reminds me of human empathy. What we see on the outside is a security for what is held within. Both contain blantant patterns and contradictions.

To return to the original question, a truly unbreakable code would be one without contradiction. As I'm not an academic scholar, or have foundation in all of what's famously out there in some circles, I was wondering if there was something touted as such?
(I'm not saying "unbreakable", I'm saying a pattern "without contradiction").

p.s.
Feel free to correct, or point out any terminology flaws, I appreciate any knowledge in terms of effectively communicating amongst other things^^
Click to expand...

I don,t know of any such thing. One thing I have done in the past since I can program is I write an encryption program using my own method to create a very long key for encryption. I encrypt my files then I delete the program I wrote keeping it all in my organic brain then I wipe my hard drive clean. If anyone got my top secret files they would have to torture me to get it unencrypted. Other than that if I died the files would never get decrypted. But, I don,t think any encryption is perfect. When quantum computers finally hit the seen encryption would become a whole other ball game.

Im kind of interested how my method of encryption would play out in the UK or other countries when encryption is not legal. If I lived in one of those countries and got raided they would find the files but no encryption program or software or proof that any had ever been installed. Now on the files how could they prove there encrypted? Could they arrest me anyway? Programming and doing your own thing and deleteing the encryption program along with any evidence and wiping the hard drive leaving only the files is the best way I know of to encrypt.
 
-So like I've heard alot of people say, applied to alot of different areas; "it all comes down to intention".

I for one, with only partial understanding regarding Edgar Allen Poe, thought him to only be a poet.
I as well realize that it's almost impossible to acquire knowledge without being receptive to the fact that many presumptions are just so.
After all the term is "trial & error"? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Even after the mistakes, we tend to know a little bit more?
 
When I say "contradiction", whatever the cipher is, there's always "alphabet soup" left in it's place - the whole idea of the original transmission to be hidden (though with all of information there to be "transmuted"
Click to expand...

OK, now we're cooking.

To answer your original question, no - there's no perfect cipher in the sense that you have asked. Once you have "broken" the code and recovered the original message in the language that it was originally written in you still have the problem of interpreting the meaning.

If I have encoded a message that is intended to give you very specific information and you decode the message then you will receive unambiguous information. But if the message that I encode is ambiguous and you decode it then the message is still ambiguous. The "cipher" had nothing to do with the message other than to prevent people to whom I didn't intend to read the message from reading the message. (Doh) But the decoded message itself will retain the ambiguity, once decoded, that was present when I encoded it.

Example: I send you the following message:

"The world will be in danger in the future".

and I put it in an encoded format.

You, thereafter, decode the message and resolve it to the correct wording. There's no particular content to the message. Of course "the world" is in danger. The question is, what are you going to do about it and where "in the world" are you going to place your assets?

On the other hand if I give you a specific date, time, location and the people involved you have specific information upon which to act (or not act - it's your choice).
 
Correct me if I'm wrong Darby, but don't people get 'encryption' mixed up with 'cipher' in their true senses of the word in modern day?
IE; There's a difference in computing between what's written on a platter, and the access to a program that only opens the information in a pleasant viewable manner (IE; OS, GUI, proggy, etc).
(The difference in access, and storage).
We all know about partitions, pointers, binary - so I think it's actually much more beneficial to speak about old fashioned hand written ciphers as to not confuse the lvl of difficulty in regards to 'data retrieval' vs. solid cipher?
Though if we're talking about the actual algorithm that processors use, security vs. efficiency can create a 'bottle-neck' effect?
(I'm not referring to the old Fat16/32 kernel problem :P).
There seems to be alot more 'bottle necks' out there today, what's the main reason for this?
(That must throw a real wrench in the forecasted technological advancement charts)
 
Is there a program that anyone knows of, that will show the binaric image of data?
(I understand it would be extremely long lists).
Just curious.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong Darby, but don't people get 'encryption' mixed up with 'cipher' in their true senses of the word in modern day?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why I gave both definitions. Technically, a cipher is the key that unlocks the encryption.
 
So out of curiousity, what do you think would be harder/easier to attain if unknown (whatever method desired);
a handwritten cipher or a machine code cipher?

(& yes I realize one could simply be a foundation to the other, so let's if you don't mind speak in terms of present day/historical in this context).
 
So out of curiousity, what do you think would be harder/easier to attain if unknown (whatever method desired);
a handwritten cipher or a machine code cipher?
Click to expand...

Machine code. A computer can encrypt a message at so many levels per second that decrypting it "by hand" would take virtually forever.

Encrypting it by hand generally involves some sort of pattern. The pattern might not be readily obvious to the eye but a computer can spend a few minutes running it through billions of decryption schemes - it would be resolved rather quickly...assuming that you had the right software.

When we encrypt by hand we use known numbers and letters. Computers can use any known language or numbers as well as any language that you invent for the purpose. Without the key to the cipher you would probably never resolve it without a computer, enough time and the right software.

With computerized encryption the problem comes down to the key to the cipher. Without the key even the most sophisticated software will require a lot of time, some truly gifted analysts and luck to break.

"Luck" in this sense can involve sending messages that you want "the other guy" to intercept and re-transmit. That could be the break that you need to solve the code. Setting them up for this is one issue, recognizing the response in a message is another issue. You have to be able to recognize that the other guy is responding to your gambit.
 
So Reactor had a good 'idea'?
Click to expand...

I don't know if Reactor had a good idea. Maybe it was LinkSys or Belkin with wireless router signal encrypton back in the mid 1990's...or the DoD with encrypted burst SatCom transmitters in the late 1960's.

Computerized digital message encryption has been around as long as there have been digital computers.
 
Motorola, surprised you didn't mention that one

I started using hexadecimal to analyze sectors on 'GoldStar' (life is good) disks a long time ago.
C= ^^
When I was nine years old even my logic told me then that 64kb proggies would never work on a Vic 20. 'Still got my hands on a drive to tape backup and had at it.
It would load off my cassette, just would be more 'blank' then my confusion at something I already knew ^^.
 
Back
Top