811
News:
Doing everything exactly opposite from "The Mainstream" is the same thing as doing everything exactly like "The Mainstream." You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
812
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 11:33:51 pm »
Most importantly. How many words are in this string? More than one? How are spaces handled?
813
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 11:12:56 pm »But I remain confident that on a 256 key scale the brute force method would be ineffective.What does this mean to you and how does it apply to what you've made here?
It sounds as though you've got a substitution cipher and I can't tell where the complex math comes in. Did you use a complex process to decide which letter turned into which symbol, because that complexity isn't going to translate forward into the complexity of cracking, it's still a matter of rotating the meaning of each character until readable text is produced.
Are you willing to discuss the process of encipherment so it can be examined in more depth? If that explanation breaks the encryption, I'm afraid you'll have trouble profiting from the scheme.
814
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Occupy
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:50:35 pm »
Missed opportunity in changing the rhyme on "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to occupy".
815
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Occupy
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:39:01 pm »"The charge of the light brigade" is just begging for a modern re-write really.
Half a block, half a block
half a block onward,
All in the valley of cops,
Rode the 200
Forward the hipsters!
Charge for the cuffs he said
Into the valley of cops
Rode the 200
'Forward, the hipsters!'
With audience unmoved.
For each among them knew
That all was spectacle:
Theirs not to battle lethal,
Theirs not to wake the sheeple,
Their purpose was more deceitful:
Into the valley of cops
Rode the Forgettable
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Police line impregnable;
Backed by only Tweeps and bloggers,
Rode ignorant cannon fodder,
Into the jaws of Death,
Against the fatcat robbers,
Rode the Forgettable
Rais'd their fists into the sky
Rais'd all their slogans high,
Flailing at the coppers there,
Charging an army with
All the world skeptical:
Plunged in the teary-smoke
Thro' the line they finally broke;
Hipster and Stoner
Reel'd from the baton-stroke
Captur'd and regrettable.
The occupation intact, but not
Not the Forgettable
816
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Occupy
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:14:33 pm »
Surely "rode the 99 percent"?
817
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:32:55 pm »
Here's some stuff on what I was saying earlier, about security by obscurity and secret encryption processes not being reliable or desirable.
http://www.networkcomputing.com/data-protection/just-say-no-to-proprietary-cryptographic/229502394
https://www.schneier.com/essay-028.html
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Guide_to_Cryptography#How_to_determine_if_you_are_vulnerable
Mathematically sound cryptography remains secure even if the process is known, so long as the key is not.
http://www.networkcomputing.com/data-protection/just-say-no-to-proprietary-cryptographic/229502394
https://www.schneier.com/essay-028.html
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Guide_to_Cryptography#How_to_determine_if_you_are_vulnerable
Mathematically sound cryptography remains secure even if the process is known, so long as the key is not.
818
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:19:11 pm »
Is it going to say "this is the plaintext" or similar? Because I can make assumptions about which characters are chaff and make it say "to be carried" or "you will not" or similar.
819
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:15:18 pm »Paes, remember that this was originally meant for a password, not a message.
In which case, it's irrelevant if a hacker can guess the original password, they just need to find out the sequence of characters.
If they're brute forcing it by trying every possible character, but if you could reverse engineer any of the rules you could make minor modifications to existing dictionary attacks to speed up the process.
It seems to me, JBookup, like you may be underestimating how quickly a computer can try all permutations of the string which keep the order intact and systematically remove groups of characters, then see if any words fit into the pattern presented.
Do you know if, while attempting to decipher this, the answer will be obvious?
820
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:00:46 pm »
So the random chaff you've thrown in doesn't have legitimate uses in the legend? If ^ is a random symbol, it never corresponds to a letter?
821
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:29:23 pm »Though it would be still set in stone, but with multiple letters having the same encrypted counterpart.
Whaaaa?
Is there a method by which the decrypter knows which of the many encrypted counterparts you are using?
822
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:23:48 pm »It could be numbers, symbols, or letters that need to be skipped. This is for encrypting passwords and what not to make it impossible for them to decrypt. Now if me and someone were exchanging encrypted messages. Obviously that other person would have the key and would be able to figure out what doesn't belong. Also these are not programs, I know nothing of those sort of things, though very soon will be trying for I have an ingenious idea. But for the time being these are written out on paper and calculated in my head.
So the key explains which numbers and letters need to be skipped? Rather than being more like a password to unlock the string, as a 'key' often is in cryptography, this is more of a series of instructions? Or would the other person decrypt the string, even with the random noise added, then remove the random symbols simply by taking out the stuff that doesn't make sense?
When you say "impossible to decrypt" do you mean "impossible to decrypt without the key" or is this a one way function from which the original text cannot be retrieved?
823
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:21:10 am »
Yeah, if the relationship worked in reverse, but the inclusion of numbers in the ciphertext suggests that there isn't a two-way relationship here. Does he have the encryption program? I thought his buddy just gave him the ciphertext?
824
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:37:32 am »
Do you mean why would I offer meaningless strings that fit that text? I was trying to illustrate that even with a simple known cipher, where each letter becomes the same symbol each time, that string could have a multitude of meanings, many of which are totally sensible statements.
When we start to consider letter pairs being represented by symbols and symbols changing meaning depending on their place in the string, that sample given could decrypt into, at its most trivial, any sequence of characters of equal length. Many ciphers simply remove spaces and let those be added in manually after the decryption, so if you can think of a series of words with the same number of letters as that string, it's just as good a solution as any, given the information we have so far. A more complex encryption method which also allows for compression of the message would allow that string to represent a much longer statement, but gives us no clue as to whether the statement is "All hail Eris, all hail Discordia" or "This sentence is encrypted." and I'm sure we could come up with a series of steps that converts either of those two statements into the sample given.
When we start to consider letter pairs being represented by symbols and symbols changing meaning depending on their place in the string, that sample given could decrypt into, at its most trivial, any sequence of characters of equal length. Many ciphers simply remove spaces and let those be added in manually after the decryption, so if you can think of a series of words with the same number of letters as that string, it's just as good a solution as any, given the information we have so far. A more complex encryption method which also allows for compression of the message would allow that string to represent a much longer statement, but gives us no clue as to whether the statement is "All hail Eris, all hail Discordia" or "This sentence is encrypted." and I'm sure we could come up with a series of steps that converts either of those two statements into the sample given.
825
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Hacks, Kludges & Other Such Tomfoolery
« on: February 12, 2014, 06:57:02 am »
Realistically, though, it's been proven time and time again that the most robust encryption algorithms don't rely on the process being secret, but well known, well read and examined, but irreversible without the key regardless of this. "I'm not telling you how I made this string" tends to be the hallmark of an obscure, but weak encryption method.