There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
regards,
Victor M. Pereira
Victor M. Pereira wrote:By simple curiosity, do you want to create your implementation of a standard encryption algorithm or are you trying to make a playfair cypher or viginere cypher?
From what I read it seems to be closest to the second one. If it is you could create a alphabet class that obtains the ascii code and compares it to the values acceptable.
Henry Wong wrote:
Am I reading this correctly? Are you looking to invent your own encryption algorithm?
Java has encryption algorithms built in -- AES, Triple DES, Blowfish, RSA, etc. -- unless this is a homework assignment, there isn't any reason to reinvent the wheel here.
Henry
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:I see many people discouraging me already.
I believe my math is sound.
What do you thing AES is doing with Mixcolumn and Shiftrow?
So what do you say is we use a single move of a knight or a horse following the standard move in chess?
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Nothing is static with the advent of more and more powerful computer. I say we better start chessing a better encryption system.
I propose an encryption system that is open source and yet secure. Oxymoron huh!!
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Well you could think am nut but am just afraid that AES is a matter of time.
My question to all those discouraging me is this is: What do you think AES is doing with Mixcolumn and Shiftrow?
So what do you say if we use a single move of a knight or a horse following the standard move in chess for the AES approach?
Don't you think it will achieve Shiftrows and mixcolumns absent rigorous codes which ligthens memory?
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Nothing is static with the advent of more and more powerful computers. I say we better start chasing a better encryption system. In this case I propose an encryption system that is open source and yet secure. Oxymoron huh!!
Jeff Verdegan wrote:
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Nothing is static with the advent of more and more powerful computer. I say we better start chessing a better encryption system.
Yes, it's true that weaknesses will probably be found eventually in today's state of the art approaches, or something like quantum computing will render them vulnerable to brute-force attacks. But just because something is different, that doesn't make it better. So, again, what specific improvements does your approach offer over others?
I propose an encryption system that is open source and yet secure. Oxymoron huh!!
Not an oxymoron at all. It has been known for quite a while now that trying to keep the algorithm secret is a huge weakness in an encryption approach. Better to assume the algorithm will be well known and well understood, and focus on making that algorithm uncrackable--that is, make it so that knowing the algorithm doesn't by itself enable you to decrypt a message.
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Nothing is static with the advent of more and more powerful computers. I say we better start chasing a better encryption system. In this case I propose an encryption system that is open source and yet secure. Oxymoron huh!!
Jeff Verdegan wrote:
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:I see many people discouraging me already.
No, they're trying to inject a bit of realism, to make sure you have a clear picture of the playing field.
I believe my math is sound.
If you're truly interested in developing a new encryption algorithm, then your math will need need to be much, much better than just "sound". Algorithms in current use were developed by guys with PhDs, after months or years of research and rigorous study of the specific mathematical properties of the existing state of the art algorithms at the time.
What do you thing AES is doing with Mixcolumn and Shiftrow?
No idea what you mean by this. A better question would be: What, specifically and mathematically, is better about your approach than AES, RSA, etc.? What weaknesses do they have that you have overcome?
So what do you say is we use a single move of a knight or a horse following the standard move in chess?
What???
No idea what you're talking about here.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Nothing is static with the advent of more and more powerful computer. I say we better start chessing a better encryption system.
Yes, it's true that weaknesses will probably be found eventually in today's state of the art approaches, or something like quantum computing will render them vulnerable to brute-force attacks. But just because something is different, that doesn't make it better. So, again, what specific improvements does your approach offer over others?
I propose an encryption system that is open source and yet secure. Oxymoron huh!!
Not an oxymoron at all. It has been known for quite a while now that trying to keep the algorithm secret is a huge weakness in an encryption approach. Better to assume the algorithm will be well known and well understood, and focus on making that algorithm uncrackable--that is, make it so that knowing the algorithm doesn't by itself enable you to decrypt a message.
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
There are more things that you will be surprised to have been worked out so far for your inquisitive mind. I only lack extensive and precise comprehension of java. My codes are not that sophisticated as yet. Thanks for your probing.
2. I will have to write a code to identify all these ASCII characters (upper and lower cases are included) as a standard state. e.g 0-25 will be A-Z.
The only thing is that I will need to have a scope. My scope will be 16 by 16 square units or 16 rows by 16 columns.
...
My problem is the #2 part. I guess we can start from there. Thanks a lot.
Jeff Verdegan wrote:
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
There are more things that you will be surprised to have been worked out so far for your inquisitive mind. I only lack extensive and precise comprehension of java. My codes are not that sophisticated as yet. Thanks for your probing.
Okay, well, I don't know enough about cryptography to know if any of what you said even makes sense (other than that the "chess game/someone always wins" bit is, shall we say, stretching things a bit). If you're convinced you're onto a better algorithm though, that's your call.
So, going back to your original post:
2. I will have to write a code to identify all these ASCII characters (upper and lower cases are included) as a standard state. e.g 0-25 will be A-Z.
The only thing is that I will need to have a scope. My scope will be 16 by 16 square units or 16 rows by 16 columns.
...
My problem is the #2 part. I guess we can start from there. Thanks a lot.
Jeff Verdegan wrote:What specific problem are you having? There's not a whole lot of advanced Java knowledge needed for what you're trying to do. From what I understand (and I admit I don't really know much at all about cryptography), it will primarily be things like ADD, MUL, XOR, SHIFT, and some array manipulations. Where it might get trickier is if you're trying to do it in multiple threads, but I would save that until it's working in a single thread.
It's not clear what you're trying to do in #2 or what specific problem you're having with it (which was pointed out in the first reply in this thread, and which you have yet to address).
Jeff Verdegan wrote:So, once again, what specific problem are you having?
All we know is that you're trying to "identify all these ASCII characters" (whatever that means) and that you "need to have a scope" (whatever that means) and that you're having some problem doing that.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Why have you written that array out? Why don’t you fill it with a pair of nested loops? Much less error-prone than counting. And I would have preferred to see the numbers in hexadecimal if they run in 16s.
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Jeff Verdegan wrote:So, once again, what specific problem are you having?
All we know is that you're trying to "identify all these ASCII characters" (whatever that means) and that you "need to have a scope" (whatever that means) and that you're having some problem doing that.
My problem is on how to effectively put all these stuff in a working code.
In any case do you think you can contribute at all. It seems to me that you are a bit cynical about it...
I take it that "whatever that means"; simply equates to the fact that you might not be familiar with this approach.
You appear to know how to print the contents of that array, so you ought to be able to populate it. I suspect you might not even need such an array, if you can use the two hex numbers and add them together after a 4‑place bitshift to the left.Earlier, I wrote:It is really easy to fill 16 16‑member arrays with numbers. You simply need a loop. . . .
Campbell Ritchie wrote:
You appear to know how to print the contents of that array, so you ought to be able to populate it. I suspect you might not even need such an array, if you can use the two hex numbers and add them together after a 4‑place bitshift to the left.Earlier, I wrote:It is really easy to fill 16 16‑member arrays with numbers. You simply need a loop. . . .
Jeff Verdegan wrote:Do you not know how to populate an array in Java?
Do you not know how to do a bit shift in Java?
Do you not know how to do an XOR in Java?
What specific piece are you having trouble with?
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Jeff Verdegan wrote:Do you not know how to populate an array in Java?
Do you not know how to do a bit shift in Java?
Do you not know how to do an XOR in Java?
What specific piece are you having trouble with?
To these questions, I am most deficient but I can learn. I have been reading up some.
Jeff Verdegan wrote:
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Jeff Verdegan wrote:Do you not know how to populate an array in Java?
Do you not know how to do a bit shift in Java?
Do you not know how to do an XOR in Java?
What specific piece are you having trouble with?
To these questions, I am most deficient but I can learn. I have been reading up some.
I wasn't asking to try to belittle you or denigrate your Java knowledge. I was using them as examples of the kind of focused, specific topics that work best here. I honestly still nave no idea whatsoever what your Java question is.
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Jeff Verdegan wrote:I honestly still nave no idea whatsoever what your Java question is.
However I can learn so where do you think I should start.
Jeff Verdegan wrote:
Jossy Johnson Um wrote:
Jeff Verdegan wrote:I honestly still nave no idea whatsoever what your Java question is.
However I can learn so where do you think I should start.
Here maybe: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/index.html
Or here or here (or the previous version, which is available free online here).
Henry Wong wrote:but since Triple DES was based on DES, people got paranoid and invented a ton of much stronger algorithms.
And another 20 years later, you have AES, RSA, Blowfish, etc.
I think I'll just lie down here for a second. And ponder this tiny ad:
New web page for Paul's Rocket Mass Heaters movies
https://coderanch.com/t/785239/web-page-Paul-Rocket-Mass
|