🚀 go-pugleaf

Writes alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon):
 
 >  The Number One assumption of cryptothingies is that if you 
 >  know the algorithm, so does the opposition.  The only thing 
 >  you can really assume to be secure is your key. But even 
 >  this is under attack... at all times.
 
 Well, if the cryptothingies like to think that way, and like to 
 limit their thinking in that way, who am I to stop them??  Be my 
 guest. I've never presumed to be able to teach anyone how to think.
 I just wondered whether they could overcome a childishly simple 
 ONE WORD encryption problem.  Just one word.  I mean, just one 
 word, guy!
 
 >  The proposed algorithm seems to do away with keys.  
 >  Are we assuming right?
 
 I have not described the algorithm or its properties.  I have 
 described the appearance of its output and would be delighted to 
 make a public post of the materials described, or of any other 
 materials that would be more to the liking of the cryptomancers 
 here. Name your poison and how you want it served, we'll mix it 
 and serve it for you. Guaranteed no underhandedness whatsoever - 
 just a li'l tough encryption.
 
 But as a concession to establish credibility, I will now say this: 
 the NuCrypt algorithm relies on the use of embedded 2048-bit 
 shifting keys. 
 
 >  a) it is a lot easier to imagine than to do.
 
 My point precisely. Easier to theorize than to decrypt.
      
 >  b) it is a lot easier to encrypt than to decrypt.
 
 I wonder whether that's necessarily true. Good encryption is not 
 "easy", as far as I can tell.  In fact, I think it's damn difficult.
 
 >  There is a tendency to resist the inkling of an idea
 >  about a whisper of change in this newsgroup, but you
 >  will punch through if you really have something to say.
 
 Yes, there is such a tendency. Many participants are rather
 conservative. And I do have something, but it wasn't something
 to say, it was something to ask, really. And a little prize
 to offer. Surely that is not so bad, eh?
 
 >  The problem is not that the "experts" can't do it; it is 
 >  that the "experts" could not care less.  
 
 Judging by some of the responses, they do care, but they want it
 given to them on a silver platter ("disclose your algorithm").
 That cannot happen, for many practical reasons. 
 
 > You have not managed to give them enough of a challenge...  
 
 Well, that's strange.  Some here have just said it was *too much* 
 of a challenge.  But disclosing the algorithm would lessen the 
 challenge even more. 
 
 > or enough of a reward.
 
 Well, OK, then we'll make the reward a little bigger.
 
 >  You are so right about this.  But does it always mean 
 >  that rejected ideas are automatically valid?
 
 No, but neither does it mean that they are not. Really, I'd like
 to point out that am not looking for anyone to determine whether
 my "ideas" are "valid" or "not valid"... that is not the objective.
 The objective was to see whether anyone here could solve a little
 puzzle I was offering. That's all.
 
 >  Then it must mean the problem was not laid out in a clear 
 >  fashion, or that it was misrepresented.
 
 There was no "problem" to lay out  - only a challenge, which was
 rejected by some even before they saw the materials! That in itself
 was interesting. They haven't even seen the "problem".
 
 And there was no misrepresentation that I'm aware of. Why should
 there be?  I'd gain nothing from it.
 

--- Maximus 2.00