- Forum
- Articles
- Simple XOR encryption
- Page 2
Simple XOR encryption
| Anyway, this is all a bit pointless. I could easily make an encryption method that you'd never solve in a million years and no computer on God's earth could solve. |
You have one hour. Starting now. Go.
Give me an executable of your program. I'll encrypt the data and attempt to work out the algorithm.
This doesn't sound like a good test...
I'm sorry but it's late and I'm not prepared to go out of my way to prove one point on honour, you can discredit the 'easily make an encryption almost unsolvable' to your content, but think about it:
We don't know what system they're using to store the data, or what size the key is, or what the repeating unit of the encryption occurring on the data is, or what types of reversable encryption they're using, or what reversable encryption the key undergoes in order to encrypt the data is, or whether they're just screwing with us.
There are plenty of uncracked codes out there, ones that aren't necessarily as complicated as an Enigma machine, but far harder to crack.
Even if I gave you the program, that wouldn't be very realistic, would it? In real life the hardest codes to crack and that remain yet uncracked are the ones we need to break for sake of finding out what is hidden inside, not the method with which they are hidden.
I'm sorry but it's late and I'm not prepared to go out of my way to prove one point on honour, you can discredit the 'easily make an encryption almost unsolvable' to your content, but think about it:
We don't know what system they're using to store the data, or what size the key is, or what the repeating unit of the encryption occurring on the data is, or what types of reversable encryption they're using, or what reversable encryption the key undergoes in order to encrypt the data is, or whether they're just screwing with us.
There are plenty of uncracked codes out there, ones that aren't necessarily as complicated as an Enigma machine, but far harder to crack.
Even if I gave you the program, that wouldn't be very realistic, would it? In real life the hardest codes to crack and that remain yet uncracked are the ones we need to break for sake of finding out what is hidden inside, not the method with which they are hidden.
I'm sorry Veltas, I simply don't believe you could easily make an "uncrackable" encryption "method" I simply don't. (not one that can be used to unencrypt the same data, maybe one that simply randomizes the data.) But as you, in your own words, are
I don't think you have the knowhow. Nor do I think you have the mindset necessary. You, my friend, are lacking in humility and tact.
| still quite new to C++ (as you may be able to tell). |
I'm not really sure what being new to C++ has to do with creating an algorithm.
Maybe once again I misspeak, when I say 'I' can, I'm really trying to mean 'one' can. This is because whether or not one individual person can make an unbreakable encryption is highly irrelevant, rather it is more important that most people could.
And once more, I don't think I've explained myself very well; it does not concern me whether or not you believe I can make an incredibly hard encryption. So, really; there's no need to apologise. =D
Maybe once again I misspeak, when I say 'I' can, I'm really trying to mean 'one' can. This is because whether or not one individual person can make an unbreakable encryption is highly irrelevant, rather it is more important that most people could.
And once more, I don't think I've explained myself very well; it does not concern me whether or not you believe I can make an incredibly hard encryption. So, really; there's no need to apologise. =D
I agree, there is no need to apologize. Never said there was, just said I disliked your general air. No need to impress random strangers online =]
On the unbreakable/uncrackable encryption. Yes. Perhaps it's possible. However being pompous about someone who is genuinely trying to help isn't going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the opposite.
I just think that generally if you're going to bash someone on the technicalities of their message, you should know a little about it yourself (by a little I mean generally > them) but that's just my opinion. Perhaps in this instance you were correct, perhaps there was a valid point made, though the way in which the message was conveyed skewed my view of you personally, and I doubt that's what you want.
On the unbreakable/uncrackable encryption. Yes. Perhaps it's possible. However being pompous about someone who is genuinely trying to help isn't going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the opposite.
I just think that generally if you're going to bash someone on the technicalities of their message, you should know a little about it yourself (by a little I mean generally > them) but that's just my opinion. Perhaps in this instance you were correct, perhaps there was a valid point made, though the way in which the message was conveyed skewed my view of you personally, and I doubt that's what you want.
"I agree, there is no need to apologize. Never said there was, just said I disliked your general air. No need to impress random strangers online =]"
Well, okay then.
"On the unbreakable/uncrackable encryption. Yes. Perhaps it's possible."
Well I didn't really mean unbreakable, I meant 'incredibly hard and would take an incredibly long time to crack'.
"However being pompous about someone who is genuinely trying to help isn't going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the opposite. "
I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence, but I apologise if I've caused you grievance.
"I just think that generally if you're going to bash someone on the technicalities of their message, you should know a little about it yourself (by a little I mean generally > them) but that's just my opinion."
I understand but I'm afraid I disagree, otherwise nobody would ever question anyone superior to themselves.
"Perhaps in this instance you were correct, perhaps there was a valid point made, though the way in which the message was conveyed skewed my view of you personally, and I doubt that's what you want. "
Yes; I do not want that and did not intend that.
Well, okay then.
"On the unbreakable/uncrackable encryption. Yes. Perhaps it's possible."
Well I didn't really mean unbreakable, I meant 'incredibly hard and would take an incredibly long time to crack'.
"However being pompous about someone who is genuinely trying to help isn't going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the opposite. "
I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence, but I apologise if I've caused you grievance.
"I just think that generally if you're going to bash someone on the technicalities of their message, you should know a little about it yourself (by a little I mean generally > them) but that's just my opinion."
I understand but I'm afraid I disagree, otherwise nobody would ever question anyone superior to themselves.
"Perhaps in this instance you were correct, perhaps there was a valid point made, though the way in which the message was conveyed skewed my view of you personally, and I doubt that's what you want. "
Yes; I do not want that and did not intend that.
| I meant 'incredibly hard and would take an incredibly long time to crack'. |
Glad you cleared that up.
| I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence |
I was referring to the way you responded to computergeek01, you caused me no grievance, just annoyance.
| I understand but I'm afraid I disagree, otherwise nobody would ever question anyone superior to themselves. |
That's not the point.
| Yes; I do not want that and did not intend that. |
Good. No harm, no foul.
Well if this is a response to my headrush at computergeek then I understand. Looking back I could have explained that a bit better, as it seemed like the conversation was drifting into philosophy.
On another note, I just learned :
cool huh?
Aaaanyways, it's cool dwabi. As a matter of fact, send me an email: ultifinitus@gmail.com
| Humans have more than five senses. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception).[106] Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide levels. |
cool huh?
Aaaanyways, it's cool dwabi. As a matter of fact, send me an email: ultifinitus@gmail.com
Yes it is cool, but be careful where you use it because in a Biology test I was once asked for 5 senses and I couldn't remember touch so I wrote down thermoception and my Biology teacher was sceptical and didn't give me the mark. At least I'll never forget touch again... Not really sure how I managed that one...
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| On the unbreakable/uncrackable encryption. Yes. Perhaps it's possible. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
Well, I was horribly wrong anyway; I was under the impression it was impossible to create something that literally is unbreakable.
"We don't know what system they're using to store the data, or what size the key is, or what the repeating unit of the encryption occurring on the data is, or what types of reversable encryption they're using, or what reversable encryption the key undergoes in order to encrypt the data is"
That actually sounds pretty similar to the One-Time Pad.
"We don't know what system they're using to store the data, or what size the key is, or what the repeating unit of the encryption occurring on the data is, or what types of reversable encryption they're using, or what reversable encryption the key undergoes in order to encrypt the data is"
That actually sounds pretty similar to the One-Time Pad.
@both:
| The theoretical perfect security of the one-time-pad applies only in a theoretically perfect setting; no real-world implementation of any cryptosystem can provide perfect security because practical considerations introduce potential vulnerabilities. These practical considerations of security and convenience have meant that the one-time-pad is, in practice, little-used. Implementation difficulties have led to one-time pad systems being broken, and are so serious that they have prevented the one-time pad from being adopted as a widespread tool in information security. |
I don't understand what that section is talking about, what are the potential vulnerabilities and why did they cause one-time-pad to be little-used?
| balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception).[106] Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide levels. |
Isn't 'touch' a generalization of most of those?
xor encryption is impossible to decrypt if the key is long enough.
| I don't understand what that section is talking about, what are the potential vulnerabilities and why did they cause one-time-pad to be little-used? |
In order to be completely secure, the pad must be generated randomly (as opposed to psuedo-randomly). So if you use say, rand() to generate the info, that can be cracked since it has a pattern you could latch on to.
As for the other stuff, it takes a lot of money/time to generate a good one time pad, so you can't really just "make" one unlike other codes. Hence, you have to make some sacrifices in order to fix it.