🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello all you you crypto-types.
  I've been reading this group for some time and would like
to ask your opinions about about the following cipher, which
I have not seen discussed before ( although this probably only
means I haven't looked hard enough :-) 
I've read both "The Codebreakers" and "Cryptography: A Primer",
and I have Aegean Park Press's latest catalog, so if I have missed
something elementary, point me toward the correct book.

I KNOW this is not foolproof, but I was wondering about what
it's weaknesses are.
Assume I have hardware that generates:
	Random numbers (phase-jitter of free-runnning osc. or whatever)
		[ well ASSUME they are random ]
	Pseudorandom number generator (PRN), or more likely a set of
	  	PRN generators which are chained together to 
		increase the periodicity.

How about the following cipher:
	Rk(n) = random numbers from a hardware random # generator
		This is the random key number. This would be an offset
		into pseudorandom number space.
	Rl(n) = another random from a hardware random # generator
		This would pick the length of the plaintext to
		encipher. Done to help break up patterns.
	P(n) = pseudorandom number based on Rk(n)
 
DeLoop:
	Take plaintext of length [Rl(n) - 2]  and Rk(n+1) and Rl(n+1)
			XOR with
	            P(Rk(n)) of length Rl(n)
			    ||
			Ciphertext
loop DeLoop 	(till all text is enciphered)

place Rl(1), Rk(1) at predetermined places in the resulting ciphertext

With this you have the plaintext XORed with Psuedo-random numbers, 
the seed of which is the random # Rk(n) which is placed at the end 
of each preceeding block. The variable length blocks are used to help break
up any patterns inherent in the PRNG. I do realize that most of the 
security(?) in this system depends on the periodicity of the PRNG
and that this must be as long as is feasible. To this end Rk(n) could
do two things: 
		1) act as the seed # of the PRN generator
		2) select a PRN generating algorithm
		   or select how several predifined PRN generators
		   are chained together.

  Clearly if Rl(n)=>1, and there is then no room to add R(n+1) and L(n+1), 
we have a one time pad (whoops, well almost. We would have XORed with a
PRN which is a function of a random number which you don't know, which 
_should_ be random, depending on the algorithm). This would give us a way 
to approach a one time pad's security without the attendent problems of 
of key distribution. Security would rest in the period length of the PRN
generators and the placement of the initial numbers R1(1) and R2(1) 
within the text. Naturaly they would have to occur at an agreed upon place
(or places) in the ciphertext, or they themselves would be the key(s).
  
 QUESTIONS
Is it a valid to assume that pseudorandom data XORed
with normal text will look (pseudo)random? Or is it dependent on the
language of the plaintext i.e. will the patterns inherent in the
plaintext show through the pseudorandom numbers?
  
Well, that's my bid for most unbreakable code of the femtosecond.
Flames welcome, as I always find flames illuminating :-)
				
				Tom Repa(trash@oliven)

"Unaware of the scope of simple equations, man has often concluded that 
nothing short of God, not mere equations, is required to explain the 
complexities of the world." - R.P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics 
Path:	{allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash
-- 
"Unaware of the scope of simple equations, man has often concluded that 
nothing short of God, not mere equations, is required to explain the 
complexities of the world." - R.P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics 
Path:	{allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash