I told you: it's changed, and is a LOT more secure than what I posted here.
I told you: it's changed, and is a LOT more secure than what I posted here.
You know, it would be much easier to evaluate the security with knowledge of the algorithm. And, as others have said, not releasing the algorithm open-source is certainly no guarantee of any type of security, nor is it a hindrance to someone who really wants to break it.
Here's 100 "ta"s: as you can see, it doesn't repeat at all (like the last one did)
Code:&-K'm,M*c'qfMe~s2Ftju*k^ m1Ը`#4 79!u38^2x9 X?
I see that. That isn't what I was talking about.
... ok...Originally Posted by Zach L.
note: ((k & c) ^ (k | c)) is the keystream generator (function g). Also, this algorithm will likely change by the next version (again, as I secure it more)Code:C = M ^ ((k & l) ^ (k | l)); // l is the last encrypted character M = C ^ ((k & l) ^ (k | l)); // l is the last read encrypted character
Tnanks. My head is about to fall on the keyboard, so I won't get a chance to really coherently look at it until tommorow, but that certainly helps a bit, and some analysis should be interesting.
why is there anchar with ASCII value 1 at regular interval.. just give me time.. i will tell you how u did it...
Just a quick note: ((k & l) ^ (k | l)) can be simplified into (k ^ l).
Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah
You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie
Really? 5h17... I have to remake the keystream generator then (which I was gonna do anyways)
01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 1101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01011001 01101000 01101001 01110011 00111111 00100000 01000100 01100001 01101101 01101110 00100001 00000000
You might wanna do a truth table next time for something which just uses bitwise operators.
Code:r = ( k & l ) ^ ( k | l ) k l r 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 r = k ^ l k l r 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah
You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie
bruteforced
Anything can be bruteforced therefore nothing is secure. Yes i mean symetrical as asymertucal encryption. any algorithem comes up with a number then used with the text in one way or another. nonmonoalphabetic is not much of a problem for you brute forecer. It is just a matter of knowing when you have the correct variable text back.
edit
it is just a matter of time
Last edited by kryptkat; 04-01-2004 at 05:17 AM.
>Anything can be bruteforced therefore nothing is secure.
Security is relative. If it takes your brute force method longer to crack the code than it does for me to use it successfully then it's probably secure for my purposes.
My best code is written with the delete key.
Nobody has been able to crack it yet? I'm amazed
01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 1101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01011001 01101000 01101001 01110011 00111111 00100000 01000100 01100001 01101101 01101110 00100001 00000000
Either that or no-one feels that it's worth their time to crack it.
Naturally I didn't feel inspired enough to read all the links for you, since I already slaved away for long hours under a blistering sun pressing the search button after typing four whole words! - Quzah
You. Fetch me my copy of the Wall Street Journal. You two, fight to the death - Stewie
But Zach L. said that he would try, and he hasn't responded yet.
01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 1101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01011001 01101000 01101001 01110011 00111111 00100000 01000100 01100001 01101101 01101110 00100001 00000000
