| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cryptography Forum » Relative Ct Lengths...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| WTShaw... |
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On the question of cryptographic strength in this series, I have
already posted on several aspects:
1) Cryptographic Strength can be classified and roughly rated.
2) The base used makes a difference as there are better choices.
3) Pseudorandom Character Generators as needed can be used directly in
the base selected for a specific algorithm.
4) The next area is to deal with homophones and/or problematic
encryption which can be used to increase strength. Rather then having
one ciphertext for one plaintext under one key, optional ciphertexts
would all decrypt to the same result.
A simple choice scheme would be a caesar where one of several outputs
is used in a rather elementary way. Note that plaintext and
ciphertext lengths with it are the same. There are many other examples
that conserve fixed length. Other classic and neoclassic systems
might use a 2X or 3X increase in size from Pt to Ct which can be used
to allow several versions of Ct but are considered rather wasteful of
bandwidth. Still there is much to learn in their study.
There are certain compression techniques which might affect absolute
length.
I find that a very small increase in size is advantageous, causing a
slight spiraling increase of size in encryption. How lengths are
increased might affect chained encryptions, facilitating them or even
hopelessly confusing the content but done properly, powerful results
can results.
Using larger bases, number of possible ciphertexts with marginal size
increases can still be huge, rather perhaps rendering useful
correlations of them functionally impossible. Forcing a no growth
size can mean ignoring a valuable primitive which can yield gains in
potential strength. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:34 pm
|
|