unbreakable encryption by means of simple subtraction

[lordshinmei]

>All you need is the password. so what is the purpose of the hash???? Also, if your random number generator only has one seed, then it isn't even close to being random. >Even a simple one like the rand () command uses 2 seeds. The time and the input from the microphone port.
>
>It just seems like you are doing extra steps which will do nothing but take extra time.

First of all, the random number generator does not have only one seed. It takes the output from the 2048-bit hash and divides it into sixty-four individual 32-bit seeds. This is more secure than any other purely mathematical pseudorandom number generator that there is right now. What you said about the time and mic is called entropy seeding. The problem with entropy seeding is that is can almost never be repeated. Unless you decrypt at the exact same time on the exact same computer with the exact same system status, you will not get back your original message even with the right key. Entropy seeding is useless in cryptographic applications.
Second, the hash algorithm is completely necessary. If you merely convert a password to ASCII numbers and use that as the seed, then the message can be cracked much more easily. Most people will not enter a password more than 32 bits in length. But if a small password goes through a 2048-bit hash, it comes out as a 2048-bit string of data. If this is converted to many small seeds for a random number generator, it will always be more secure than a single small seed. The hash's purpose is to increase (or decrease if necessary) the size of the password to make it more secure for random number generator seeding. If you use a single password as the seed then the cryptanalyst doesn't have to try nearly as many keys. For a single 64-bit password, there are 2^64 number of possible keys; but for sixty-four 32-bit seeds, there are (2^32)^64. With that many keys, it would take extremely long to check each one. Longer than RSA, AES, 3DES, Blowfish, or anything else. That's the reason that this method could be used for other things than just my subtraction thing.
So, to answer Souleman's comment, the hash is to produce multiple seeds from a single password and there are sixty-four seeds, not one.
Also, what LogOff said sounds like a onetime pad. They are indeed unbreakable but like you said key distribution gets annoying. That's actually why I originally came up with the random number gnereator idea; you could use it with modulated output to produce keys for a onetime pad.

[WiteWoLF]

ne1 read... Between Silk and Cyanide?

brings up a nice point about randomness.

further reading: DC-stuff newslist

(I challenge you to Break Wynacht's code...i'm on my fourth month of it)

[souleman]

The problem with entropy seeding is that is can almost never be repeated.

Thats the point of a random number generator. If it can be easily repeated, its not even psudo-random.

If you merely convert a password to ASCII numbers and use that as the seed, then the message can be cracked much more easily.

If my password is "ABC" I don't care if you put it through a 5 Meg hash, all you need to break it is "ABC"

Adding more steps does not make something more secure. One of the original DES test algorithims went throough something like 64 "boxes" It was actually weaker then the current one, which goes through 13 (if I rememeber correctly).

[lordshinmei]

First of all, in cryptography the point of a random number generator is NOT to give irreproducible results. THe whole point of the random number generator in this algorithm is to produce keystreams. The user gives a password which is converted into seeds for the random number generator. The random number generator gives modulated output and reseeds itself to give more output for as many iterations as are necessary. When the user enters a certain password, a certain key will invariably come up. This way, when the user decrypts the message all he has to remember is the password. If it were not this way; that is, if the same password did not always produce the same results due to the use of system entropy as a secondary seed, then when the user tries to decrypt he will fail because the system status will have changed in some way and the key will be different. This will produce incorrect output of decrypted text.

Say I encrypt "apple" with password of "dog" and it comes out as "djfghkjdf". Now, if the same output occurs with each seed then I can enter "dog" and get back the key to reverse the process. But if entropy is used, then the second time I enter "dog" I will not get the same output, and I cannot decrypt my message. This is why entropy seeding is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY in cryptography.

Second, I will state the purpose of the hash as clearly as I can...

For a n-character ASCII password, the number of possible keys is 95^n. If a single password is used then there will invariably be a limit on password size. If the limit is 20 then a computer only has to chech 95^20 keys to break the password. But if a hash is used, then the user can use a password of literally any length. The hash will shorten it if it is too long but not just cut it off. And if you are using a hash to shorten long passwords then you want the hash output to be as large as possible so that different paswords will produce the same hash as rarely as is possible. If you have a 32-bit hash then there will inevitably be two passwords of over 32 bits whose hashes are alike. By using a large but secure hash, we allow the user to use a password of arbitrary length while minimizing the chance that two passwords will come out with the same hash.

Finally, extra steps actually do make things more secure. A combination lock with 3 numbers is always more secure combination-wise than a lock with only two. Similarly, AES

[lordshinmei]

sorry, my last message go cut off-- I was going to say that AES is only a more complicated setup of the same Fiestel networks used in DES, but everyone knows it is more secure.

[LoggOff]

he he he, he said "only has to chech 95^20 keys".... he he he, its the ONLY that gets me, its kinda like Bill gates is ONLY the ritchest man in the world.......

sorry, ill start acting my age again

[lordshinmei]

95^20 is nothing if you've got supercomputers and all that good stuff...but (2^32)^64 is! If you had a billion billion computers and each could check a billion billion keys per second, then it would take 1.02476554006x10^591 YEARS to check each possible key. And nothing's that fast anyway...

[LoggOff]

hmmmm thats a good calculater you got to figure those numbers, i know that the XP towertoys calcualtor only toped out at 512 bit numbers...... what are you doing those calculations on? just curious cause i havent figured out a good calcualtor tool in linux yet

[lordshinmei]

LoggOff: I use a TI-89. It's really great- it'll solve multivariable equations, graph in 3D, and handle really big numbers right down to the units digit usually. I recommend it strongly. Also, I program it a LOT; mine right now has about 10 crypto programs. TI-89 uses a computer algebra system so it's as good as one of the expensive software ones for computer (if not as fast...!)

[LoggOff]

yeah i used the 83s before, but i dont care for a calculator that is trying to be a Palm clone, and besides i dont have near the cash to dish out to the unit to begin with. but uts cool that it does those high precision numbers tho